Say What Saturday: Bury Him With Honors

I wish I had been able to attend. Promise I would have listened better this time! 😁
Regards
David
It is always special to give a program on the anniversary, even on a day like today when we have very few visitors. With the smaller numbers the program becomes much more intimate. The last few minutes I have been in the lobby reading aloud sections of Brig. Gen. David Stanley's report. Very exciting descriptions of the battle.
 
This was the view on the battlefield just a few minutes ago. A train with well over a hundred military vehicles cruised slowly by.

120715233_10221244102866578_8260146233575081915_n.jpg
 
Letters like the one in the Natchez Weekly Democrat just make me weary. A few things about burials during the war.

  • Both sides buried their foes in burial trenches or pits. I have ample evidence of the Union burying their own in trenches at Shiloh near Spain Field, and the Confederates burying their own in trenches at Corinth following the battle of Shiloh and the battle of Corinth. The Confederates did not bury the Union in individual graves after Chickamauga or Brice’s Crossroads, nor did the Union after their victories. An unfortunate result of war. Same thing happened in Korea and Vietnam and continues to happen.
  • Col. Rogers was buried separately as he was identified by the Union as a colonel (or a general). There is no doubt of this, I, however, doubt Rosecrans spoke the words etched on Rogers monument.
  • The author of the letter said, Col. Rogers is, I am told, the only one who was buried deep enough to prevent the rains from washing the dirt away and exposing the bones. In 1867 agents of the Quartermaster Department combed Corinth for Union graves and made note of the location of a number of Confederate graves. This happened at Shiloh as well and they documented when they found Confederates who needed reburial. These records are available for viewing on Ancestry.com. As for the men next to Rogers, they were exhumed to the Corinth City Cemetery in 1894. The Confederate veterans who did this made no mention of any shallow graves.
  • The sight that I saw of vast numbers of Confederate ‘bones’ – whose skeletons and parts of skeletons – lying exposed and bleaching on the field, in the bushes and on the hillsides, under logs and on stumps; of the neatly enclosed and well marked graves of Federal soldiers, all buried at the proper depth. How did he know the bones were Confederate? The QM agents noted a number of Federal graves which had been rooted up by hogs. After the battle of Shiloh there were thousands of deaths from wounds or disease and these dead were buried by fellow Confederates. Did they bury their own so shallow that only one Confederate grave, as the author claims, could be found in the city? Also, the Union left the city in January 1864 and the Confederates returned. Does this mean the Confederacy ignored the condition of their own dead for the next 16 months and then the citizens ignored it from then on? Doubtful. On May 28 1864 two Confederate officers (Col. William Burnet and Major Edward Cummings) were dispatched from Mobile to travel to Corinth to inspect the Union fortifications for possible use. "They will also take measures to identify and protect the resting places of those officers and men of the C.S. Army who fell in the attack on Corinth, made by Maj. Gen. Van Dorn Oct 3rd & 4th 1862."
  • At the outer line of entrenchments, where a portion of Maury’s division made the assault, I saw two human skull bones, one pelvis, and two jaw-bones, lying on a stump, with no trace of a grave or timulus nearer than fifty or one hundred yards. In front of the outer breastworks not far from the same spot, I saw two timuli, where some six or eight Confederate dead had been covered up on one side of a hill. Confederate accounts of the battle speak of burial parties working through the night of October 3 and morning of October 4 to bury their dead. Many were identified and their graves marked. In several instances family members came to the field and were allowed to take the remains home for burial. Those who could not be identified were either buried where they were found or placed in burial trenches. There were several field hospitals near Cane Creek and those who perished from their wounds were buried by their own men under the same circumstances.
The author of this piece for the Natchez Weekly Democrat was clearly trying to demonize the Union army in the post-war South. He inadvertently cast shame on the Confederates and Corinth citizens who would have allowed such a condition to persist. I’ve no doubt that bones were left exposed from graves exposed by animals or farming.

Veterans visiting Shiloh in the 1890’s observed a farmer who had unearthed human remains while plowing and informed them it was not an infrequent event. It was this observation which led to a movement that culminated in the establishment of Shiloh National Military Park.
"The author of this piece for the Natchez Weekly Democrat was clearly trying to demonize the Union army in the post-war South."

Do you think the other side ever did the same?
 
For honesty's sake...the quote is very suspect and I have grave reservations about it.

I have been unable to find any writings by William Rosecrans where he says these words about Rogers. Rosecrans does mention him by name in his official report, but only to say he led the final charge against Battery Robinett. Years later he wrote an article for Century Magazine and here he stated Rogers had been shot down by a drummer boy. (Insert eyeroll here).

The quote comes from Confederate Veteran Magazine (1907) and a letter written 36 years after the battle by 1st Lt. John Crane, adjutant of the 17th Wisconsin Infantry. The letter is to a woman he had met in New York and promised more details of the battle. He gives a very stirring account of the battle, which, sadly, do not agree with the historic record or are downright impossible.

He told her the 17th Wisconsin of McArthur's brigade "was placed in a position to defend Battery Robinett." Actually, the 17th Wisconsin was on the extreme Union left flank and on the south side of the Corona Female Academy. There were two other forts, Phillips and Williams, between his position and Battery Robinett. He may have been able to see the fighting if he climbed to the top of the brick college, as the college was located on high ground, but as it was 1/2 a mile away, the details might have been hard to make out. If he stayed with his regiment he could not have been able to see the fighting at all as they were on the reverse slope of the hill.

He told her how Rogers approached the fort on horseback (true) and that he jumped the ditch and the wall (false). The ditch in front of Battery Robinett was 15 feet across at the top and 3 feet deep. Most accounts have the ditch filled with dead and wounded before the third attack had been spent. On the far side of the ditch is a narrow step, 10 to 12 inches wide and then the wall rises at an angle of 60 degrees to a height of just over 6 feet. The full height of the rampart was 7 feet and the walls were 15 feet thick. "Before he (Rogers) had realized it he had jumped his horse across the ditch in front of the guns, and was in the midst of us." That would have been a whopper of a leap. Besides clearing the wall, for the horse to land in the "midst" of the 17th Wisconsin would have required the beast to fly like Pegasus.

There are several "eyewitness" accounts of Rogers riding his horse to the top of the wall with the flag in one hand, a pistol in the other, and his sword in his third hand. I would invite anyone who thinks he made it to the top of the wall, mounted or otherwise, to read the very graphic accounts of Lt. Charles Labuzan and Pvt. William McKinstry of the 42nd Alabama Infantry. They make it abundantly clear such an action was simply simply impossible.

"We laid the body of Colonel Rogers reverently in the shade and covered him with an overcoat. When the battle was ended, General Rosecrans came over and asked us to uncover the face. He said 'He was one of the bravest men that ever led a charge. Bury him with military honors and mark his grave, so his friends can claim him.'"

And there is the source of the quote. If anyone else heard Rosecrans it was not recorded. I think it is a great quote and certainly its deserving. I just believe that the man who said it was a Lt. from Wisconsin, and not Maj. General Rosecrans.

And concerning his being buried with honors. I've never found a letter, diary, report, etc about anyone being given a special burial following the battle. In fact, I can't find anything about burial parties, and believed me I've looked (It's my job afterall).
I have always wondered about these things. Certainly answers some questions. Have you or anyone ever seen the breastplate with the holes that supposedly was Col. Rogers's and is in the Wisconsin Historical Society/Museum?
 
David,

These are just memorial stones, no one is buried there. The three stones on the left are where the wall stood and the three on the right would have been located inside the fort at the location of the embrasure facing the northwest. A 20-pounder Parrott stood right about where they are located. All of this was confirmed by ground penetrating radar in 2000. The stones were placed by the ladies of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Tom
Tom: Have you ever seen a "layover" where the dimensions of Battery Robinett are super-imposed over a Google maps picture, to show where the fort was?
 
"The author of this piece for the Natchez Weekly Democrat was clearly trying to demonize the Union army in the post-war South."

Do you think the other side ever did the same?
I apologize for that unnecessary comment.
 
Last edited:
Note fort location comments:

Confederate dead in front of Battery Robinette the morning after the October 4, 1862, attack. The October battle left thousands of dead and wounded soldiers on each side. Image courtesy Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-B811-1292.
 
I have always wondered about these things. Certainly answers some questions. Have you or anyone ever seen the breastplate with the holes that supposedly was Col. Rogers's and is in the Wisconsin Historical Society/Museum?
Yes, there is a photo of it in the regimental history of the 2nd Texas Infantry by Joseph E. Chance. I've always had a hard time swallowing this story because there are no witness accounts of such a heavy garment being worn. Also, the big hole in it, which looks like it was made by a canister round, does not match up with the wounds on Rogers' chest in the famous photograph of he and several other dead Confederates. Earlier this year I searched every source I could put my hands on to find a voice that backs up the story. I ended up calling the Madison Veteran's Museum where it was held and had a great conversation with their curator. As it turns out he has a problem with the vest as well. Their museum got it from the Wisconsin Historical Society who were not satisfied with the provenance of the piece and gave it to the Veterans Museum. In fact there is nothing in writing to indicate where it even came from. There is just a small hand-written card that said Rogers was wearing it at Corinth. The first mention, which I can find, of this artifact is in Chance's book published in 1984. All other subsequent mentions of the vest use Chance's book as the source. Because the provenance is so weak they have taken it off of display. Its a really cool story, but unfortunately it is just that, a story.
 
I seriously doubt that Colonel Rogers wore any protective clothing or device. The greatest attribute of any leader in the Civil War was physical courage and exhibiting bravery at all times. If any of his men suspected that he was hiding behind a breastplate he undoubtedly would have lost their respect and perhaps their loyality.

Of course, all this is my opnion not based on any evidence of knowledge that I am aware of at this time.
Regards
David
 
I seriously doubt that Colonel Rogers wore any protective clothing or device. The greatest attribute of any leader in the Civil War was physical courage and exhibiting bravery at all times. If any of his men suspected that he was hiding behind a breastplate he undoubtedly would have lost their respect and perhaps their loyality.

Of course, all this is my opnion not based on any evidence of knowledge that I am aware of at this time.
Regards
David
Another great reason for him not to be wearing one was the heat - there was a drought throughout the Western Theater in Autumn, 1862, and although it was October the weather was still hot and very dry.
 
Back
Top