PA Confederates in the Gettysburg National Cemetery

Status
Not open for further replies.
Enough. People have made their points. This isn't going anywhere, and we're no longer talking about the Confederates buried at Gettysburg, where they are buried there, and why they are buried there. Let the rest go ... all the points worth making have been made.
 
I just calls 'em as l sees 'em:

1. There had been no objective attached to the profiles printed in the OP

2. Much has been implied from the profiles posted

3. I have posited a 'wait and see' position on John's data as @Cavalry Charger summarized in her post above

Fair enough. I can understand if you don't have any sources you can link on this topic. I just calls 'em as l sees 'em too.
 
Remains were uncovered at the Railroad Cut in 1996, another story says remains were found at Seminary Ridge also that same year, that might be an error. However, there are at least 100 graves on Culp's Hill, possibly more than 200 according to the NPS.

Well said @Cavalry Charger! This is indeed an interesting topic. Clyde Bell was the supervisory ranger at Gettysburg when he died in 2013. He recommended the book, Wasted Valor: The Confederate Dead at Gettysburg by Gregory A. Coco for folks who want to learn more about the Confederates buried at Gettysburg.

According to a post Mr. Bell made in The Blog of Gettysburg Military Park, research has found that at least seven Confederate soldiers, through cases of mistaken identity, were buried in the Soldiers’ National Cemetery where six remain to this day. Mr. Bell related the story of Major Benjamin W. Leigh.... "Major Leigh, the assistant adjutant general of General Edward Johnson’s Division, was originally among those buried in the Soldiers’ National Cemetery, but his remains have since been disinterred in the national cemetery, properly identified and sent with proper ceremony to Shockoe Hill Cemetery in Richmond. The initial decision to move the Confederate officer’s remains from his field grave to the national cemetery remains a mystery. Major Leigh was shot down in the final moments of the fighting at Culp’s Hill. His bravery and courage in his final moments was witnessed by numerous Union soldiers, who provided the officer a decent burial on the hill side, going to far as to mark his grave with his initials and unit. He was mistaken during the exhumation process for a Union soldier."

I think the most recent discovery of a Confederate soldier's body occurred in 1995 near the Railroad Cut. The identity of this soldier and the army in which he served could not be readily identified during the archaeological excavation of the remains, but several battle experts believe he fought for the Confederacy and was most likely a Mississippi soldier.
 
Last edited:
That's what I'm curious about, how someone who can be identified as from a southern state came to buried in another state's section.

I'm surprised that there weren't more mistakes, considering the level of confusing around there after the battle and the primitive level of medical technology, compared to modern medicine's DNA tests, fingerprints, dental records, etc. They didn't wear dog tags either. There are so many graves marked "unknown" where all they knew was which army they were a member of, presumably based on uniform. I'd bet a few of those are wrong too, and will never be found out.

If the presence of Confederates in that cemetery is going to lead to ongoing disrespect for them and torment for their descendants, maybe it would be for the best if the remains (if any can be found after 154 years) are relocated. I think the final decision on that should be left to the families.
 
I couldn’t resist checking out John Rudy in hopes of learning more about his research. http://www.civilwarconnect.com

Thank you for your excellent commentary and the link. I have just read Rudy's blog entries for the past 3 years, and found much that I concur with. He's in my *favorites* bookmarks now. Have to say, though, he is certainly not prolific. A man of few words, but good words, IMHO.
 
If the presence of Confederates in that cemetery is going to lead to ongoing disrespect for them and torment for their descendants, maybe it would be for the best if the remains (if any can be found after 154 years) are relocated. I think the final decision on that should be left to the families.

In what way is it disrespectful to have a 100% true account?
 
I have just read Rudy's blog entries for the past 3 years, and found much that I concur with. He's in my *favorites* bookmarks now. Have to say, though, he is certainly not prolific. A man of few words, but good words, IMHO.

Agreed. I am a firm believer in brevity.
 
Last edited:
In what way is it disrespectful to have a 100% true account?
I can agree within the bounds of Study and Research... but on a Memorial Page or a Tombstone, No. The facts could be that I had an affair or served jail time for manslaughter, but once I am dead, why does it need to be posted on a Memorial Page? Is it just to drag my name thru the mud and hurt loved ones. Many people who have ancestors that did keep slaves find it an uncomfortable feeling and history that in some cases they are still judged by. My family owned slaves... I find it disgusting, but still don't want it highlighted and placed on a website to be an insult to the family. Just my thoughts.
 
Let us also remember that the motives of each individual on both sides were their own. In my mind, there is no doubt that the states that chose to Secede did so for the reason of keeping Slavery. That does not mean every soldier that served in a Confederate uniform did the same. In my studies, I have read how some Native Americans fought for the Confederate because some felt the Federal Gov't had not given them a fair deal and they could maybe do better with a new Gov't. Many letters I have read from Southern boys speak of serving to prove themselves to their family or to serve out of Honor to family. If you can read a dead mans mind and prove to me that he fought only because there were Slaves to be had in his family line, then and only then will I agree that we should post that info for all to know.

How about that it seems that Gen. Sherman was a complete racist that was ok with Slavery. He decided to stay and fight with the Union because he did not agree with Secession. Personally, I am glad he was on the Union side, but I find the man a disgusting human being. We still have statues of him!
 
The imputation of the sin of slavery to these four individuals as though we know their individual thoughts and beliefs, is done, not to educate but rather to push a personal agenda. It is inserting information that while factual adds nothing to the discussion. It would be no different than posting a photo of JFK's grave at Arlington, detailing his service to the country and then adding an aside that his FATHER was a philanderer. While it may be factual, it may even be history, but it does nothing to add context to the discussion.
 
I do not think it off thread to remind 2017 what in blazes was occurring in 1863. I do not mean to come across as snarky- but academic credentials are not required to poke around extensively in History and come to conclusions. Having read ( and I can source but everyone's eyes would glaze over plus, how pompous is that? ) countless, citizen, nurse and aid worker accounts, Confederate wounded were welcomed as wounded men, not slaveholders, traitors or miscreants.


The Christian Commission's report lacked objectivity. Faced with carnage, the man writing it devolved rapidly from an ' official ' into a human with a huge heart who seems to have had difficulty leaving emotion out of his pages.

confederates a gettysburg3.jpg

" .... it will have yet to bind us together " You'd think by 2017, it would.

Harriet Bayle's family adopted a Confederate boy-soldier. No traitor to his army, he was terrified, homesick and shocked out of his mind when showing up at their door. He is ' still there ', finished growing up in Gettysburg, bought the farm next door, raised a family. They're still there. Bet a lot of money there has been no blog challenging what is written on a grave in their family plot. Well, yet.

Tears for Henry and his brother- if he were buried 90 minutes from my house here in PA, I'd go get in the car and take flowers.

confederatea a gettysburg h 1.jpg

confederates a gettysburg h 2.jpg

confederates a gettysburg h3.jpg

" Our Army Nurses ", Public Domian. Did Dr. Weaver find this grave? No idea. Is he still in Gettysburg somewhere? One of the Gettysburg Dead of 1870's? No idea.

confederates a gettysburg4.jpg

The General Hospital was not put in place until August. This means the 60 officers had been in PA for awhile, being taken care of- it's very likely citizens of Gettysburg had been the first to nurse these men. And the last. Gettysburg women continued work at the hospitals.

Confederates died at Gettysburg from July 1st, 1863 until November, 1863, when the last hospital was closed. It was awhile. Gettysburg was and is their town, too. Re-writing this story does much harm, to men and women whose names we will never know.


 
Last edited:
wow! this is really interesting. Where can i read more about that?


Harriet Bayle's family adopted a Confederate boy-soldier. No traitor to his army, he was terrified, homesick and shocked out of his mind when showing up at their door. He is ' still there ', finished growing up in Gettysburg, bought the farm next door, raised a family. They're still there. Bet a lot of money there has been no blog challenging what is written on a grave in their family plot. Well, yet.
 
wow! this is really interesting. Where can i read more about that?


Isn't that cool? I know it's somewhere in what you'd think would be files but is really the dog's breakfast of a mess. Took forever and ever to find- wouldn't you think it'd be all over the place? I'll dig it out from my file ( dog bowl ) or send the link.

He showed up at their door, just a nice kid, no traitor, just shattered. They scooped him up, fed him, dying to put some meat on him, like any Mom, Harriet just added him to her family. I ' think ' they'd lost a daughter not long before. Gettysburg civilians were a riot, compassion looking for place to land- handed out food and water to Confederate soldiers as they left town. The Bayle family did, too- along with their new member.

William Bayle, Harriet's 'other ' son, grew up to be quite a big cheese- lawyer, Washington bigwig, but left his own account from 1863 as Billy Bayle. As far as documenting their adopted family member, History could not pick better witnesses.
 
Isn't that cool? I know it's somewhere in what you'd think would be files but is really the dog's breakfast of a mess. Took forever and ever to find- wouldn't you think it'd be all over the place? I'll dig it out from my file ( dog bowl ) or send the link.

He showed up at their door, just a nice kid, no traitor, just shattered. They scooped him up, fed him, dying to put some meat on him, like any Mom, Harriet just added him to her family. I ' think ' they'd lost a daughter not long before. Gettysburg civilians were a riot, compassion looking for place to land- handed out food and water to Confederate soldiers as they left town. The Bayle family did, too- along with their new member.

William Bayle, Harriet's 'other ' son, grew up to be quite a big cheese- lawyer, Washington bigwig, but left his own account from 1863 as Billy Bayle. As far as documenting their adopted family member, History could not pick better witnesses.
Dog's breakfast of a mess! :dog:
 
The imputation of the sin of slavery to these four individuals as though we know their individual thoughts and beliefs, is done, not to educate but rather to push a personal agenda. It is inserting information that while factual adds nothing to the discussion. It would be no different than posting a photo of JFK's grave at Arlington, detailing his service to the country and then adding an aside that his FATHER was a philanderer. While it may be factual, it may even be history, but it does nothing to add context to the discussion.
Spot on.
 
I can agree within the bounds of Study and Research... but on a Memorial Page or a Tombstone, No. The facts could be that I had an affair or served jail time for manslaughter, but once I am dead, why does it need to be posted on a Memorial Page? Is it just to drag my name thru the mud and hurt loved ones. Many people who have ancestors that did keep slaves find it an uncomfortable feeling and history that in some cases they are still judged by. My family owned slaves... I find it disgusting, but still don't want it highlighted and placed on a website to be an insult to the family. Just my thoughts.

I respect everything you say here. The thing is, their connection to the institution of slavery was part of their identity. People at the time didn't see it as hurtful or dragging their names through the mud. They saw it as a good thing, showing the success they and their families had achieved in life. What this information tells us is these men were elites. They came from very wealthy households and were in the upper strata of their society. They had "made it." I don't see that as being disrespectful to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top