THE BURDEN ENDURED: Death, Pain, and Suffering for the Living and the Dead of the American Civil War of 1861-65
Chuck Lott
November 20, 2012
It is the dead who make the longest demands on the living.
-Sophocles, Antigone
_______________________________________________
Collegiate Civil War classes frequently begin with the question, “After all these years, why do people still care so passionately about the Civil War?” To historians and scholars, the war produced its share of great soldiers and battles. There were great moral implications, such as the emancipation for African slaves and social issues such as women’s involvement in politics and government affairs. Women became prominent abolitionists before the Civil War and entered what had been the sphere of men only since the founding of the country. For Southerners, it may be that their homeland was laid waste by an invading army that enacted the policy of “total war,” a war philosophy in which their farms, buildings, and livestock were destroyed in the struggle and which brought about decades of struggle and bitter memories. For Unionists, the struggle was memorable for the sacrifices of men and resources to preserve and strengthen a fragile republic that had experienced severe growing pains over the first century of its existence and resulted in the liberation of millions of enslaved people of African descent.
The cause of such long-term fascination, if it could be called that, is that the war brought about unparalleled human suffering not only for the combatants, but also for those left at home as well. The scope of national tragedy is staggering. Drew Gilpin Faust in her acclaimed 2008 work, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War puts the numbers in perspective for modern readers. “The Civil War’s rate of death, its incidence in comparison with the size of the American Population, was six times that of World War II.” Faust continues, “ A similar rate, about 2 percent, in the United States today, would mean six million fatalities.”[1]
Although the sheer impact of the loss of so many men would be reason enough for descendants to answer the original question of why Americans continue to hold such strong feelings about the Civil War, I will argue and provide evidence that the 1861-65 conflict fundamentally changed the ways that human death and suffering is perceived in the United States, and the evolution of American rationalization of death and the final disposition of earthly remains challenged deeply ingrained Protestant religious beliefs, for the North and South as well.
The topic of death in the Civil War has been the subject of detailed works of scholarship and research. Even so, the digital age continues to usher in new primary sources for consideration and analysis. Period newspapers, with their obituaries, editorials, and battlefield reports continue to be digitized and made available through the Internet. Death records and personal narratives, such as journals and diaries also continue to come to light. Additionally, opportunities exist to examine sources that may have been overlooked. This essay will present some of these primary documents to make conclusions that will provide evidence that chronicles the evolution of how death was perceived, particularly through religious thought and practice. Additionally, valuable secondary sources which make up the historiography of the topic will be incorporated to provide perspectives regarding the ways that these soldier and citizen’s experiences changed as a result of the difficulties that the Civil War made upon pre-existing ideologies concerning death.
Drew Gilpin Faust’s This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War, 2008, was the subject of PBS’s documentary program, “American Experience.” Faust, president of Harvard University, provides perspectives on how death and sacrifice had consequences in the evolution of religious thought for those who fought and died in the Civil War, and for those left behind as well. The author also explores the complex feelings of men who had to come to grips with taking human life, and how these same men were hardened to the reality of death, suffering, and sacrifices.
Mark E. Neely, Jr., McCabe-Greer professor of the History of the Civil War Era, Pennsylvania State University offers challenges to the scope of the tragedy that many historians have embraces since the end of the war. The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction, 2007, offers new and controversial ways to evaluate the numbers of casualties during the conflict. Neely offers comparisons to other conflicts of the 19th century and compares the American Civil war numbers and makes conclusions that are useful in examining how the concept of death changed as a result of the 1861-65 conflict.
Other works that are not specific to the Civil War era are useful references to understand and place into context how the concept of death evolved as a result of the struggle. Gary Laderman, assistant professor of American religion and culture at Emory University, in 1996, published The Sacred Remains: American Attitudes Toward Death, 1799-188, a work that prominently features death in the Civil War. Laderman, an assistant professor of History at Emory University, begins with George Washington’s death and funerary arrangements and then shows progressions in how people come to deal with the psychological and physical results of death. Drew Gilpin-Faust and Gary Laderman reinforce each other’s conclusions as their thoughts run parallel frequently in their works regarding death in the war.
Digging Up the Dead, A History of Notable American Reburials, is a 2010 offering by Pulitzer Prize winner Michael Kammen, Newton C. Farr Professor of American History and Culture (emeritus) at Cornell University. Kammen describes one of the most important aspects of looking at how attitudes toward death changed in the 19th century with “A short history of reburial: Patterns of Change over time.” Kammen also details the complex case of abolitionists John Brown and the circumstances surrounding his execution and how Northern and Southern people viewed these funeral rites very differently.
Soldier Dead, How We Recover, Identify, Bury, & Honor Our Military Fallen, published in 2005 by Michael Sledge, investigates the reasons that Americans have gone to great lengths to identify and recover our deceased soldier’s remains. He further investigates the methods that the United States government has taken to return those who have perished in other countries to native soil. Sledge provides context regarding issues that are paramount to soldiers and their families beginning with his initial chapter’s title “Why it matters.” The author also looks to complex situations regarding soldier’s deaths, such as combat recoveries and an issue that was at the forefront of 19th century Americans, Identification of the decease soldier’s remains. Although Sledge includes Civil War soldiers, he also provides a broader look with the inclusion of most other American conflicts.
Penny Coleman’s work, Corpses, Coffins, and Crypts: A History of Burial, 1997, examines the practical side of death, from the realm of the biological to the funerary practices as they have evolved over the past two centuries. Coleman describes the methods that human remains were preserved before the practice of embalming became common during the Civil War. Colman offers a much broader view of the issues than does other works in this bibliography that focuses specifically on the Civil War or soldier deaths in general.
Religion and the American Civil War, Edited by Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagan Wilson is a collection of essays that deals with one of the fundamental aspects of the war, how God fit into the ideologies of the people of both North and South.
It is nearly impossible to consider the death without reflecting on the ways that religion colored people’s views and perspectives on the subject. Protestant ideology dictates that immediately upon death, the spirit either ascended into Heaven or an eternity of damnation awaited. Obituaries published in newspapers during the 19th century frequently mention the concept of the deceased’s belief in some type of deity or religious philosophy. However, the physical remains were another topic. Puritanism beliefs of the early American settlers had considerable influence on how death and the dead body were perceived. “In the Puritan view, the corpse was a horrible sight that signified both human sin and the flight of the soul,” writes Gary Laderman in The Sacred Remains: American Attitudes Toward Death, 1799-1883. Laderman continues, “In a culture that was moving away from the stern, dogmatic, and oppressive sensibilities of the Puritan past and towards the romantic, sentimental, and domestic characteristics of the nineteenth century, evangelicals reappraised how to make sense of death and the dead body.” [2] The evolution from the revulsion of Puritan views regarding the body of the deceased to the acceptance of physical remains as having a prominent part the death ritual created new ways that people experienced the event, and new challenges for the families of soldiers who perished during the war.
Protestant families took comfort in personally hearing the final words of their dying love one making pronouncements of faith in Jesus Christ and renouncement of sin, and for the families of young men who had not made public pre war professions of faith, it was especially relevant. According to Drew Foust in This republic of Suffering, “Family was central to the ars moriendi (good death) tradition, for kin performed its essential rituals. The dying were not losing their essential selves, but rather defining them for eternity.” Families could take comfort that their loves one, although dead physically, was present with God and that they would be reunited sometime in the future. Without the deathbed confessional, families were without closure when a loved one passed. The Civil War, with its horrific loss of life and great geographical distances from soldiers home and loved ones, made dying the ‘good death’ a source of anguish for soldiers as well as for grieving families.[3]
As the 19th century progressed, the concept of the ‘good death’ provided comfort to the family and friends of the deceased, as well as detailed a script to follow when the end of life became inevitable. In the newspaper obituaries of the Boston Recorder, dated December 09, 1847, lists the victims of a Typhoid outbreak and how the victims was depicted at the time of death by their families. Juliette Rawson, aged 17 years and the daughter of the local minister, lie on her deathbed, a victim of the outbreak. The writer of the obituary described the scene as family gathered around witnessed the perhaps idealized event: “But parental love could neither arrest the ravages of the disease, nor stay the hand of death; yet it could direct her thoughts to him who brings salvation.” After prayers were said on her behalf, the dying woman “often groaned, being burdened with guilt, but at length was enabled to roll her burden upon him who promised to sustain, to cast herself into his arms.”[4] Either Miss Rawson conformed to the notion of the ‘good death’ or her family embellished the event for their sake or for the published obituary.
The desire of Americans was to spend their final moments at home with their family and friends gathered around the deathbed. As men from the North died on Southern battlefields, the notion of the ‘good death’ brought anguish to families of the men who perished far from home. Additionally, the concepts of sacrifice of life for national sin came to the forefront, and for the first time, the nation’s morality became the focus of the death of soldiers. Daniel M. Scott, M.D., a physician whose war time diary and journal contains letters home that reveals his feelings that the war was God’s punishment for the institution of slavery. Holt was a physician assigned to the 121st N.Y. Volunteers, and he wrote from camp, near White Oak Church, in Virginia, in 1863. In describing the nation’s sin, Holt wrote, “We had forgotten God and set up false idols instead. As prosperity increased, so increased we in disobedience to the divine will, until at last, the wail of the oppressed reached the eternal throne and the avenging angel swept over the land destroying our fields lying was the heritage and killing our sons.” [5] Gary Laderman writes of how this type ideology impacted the nation. “The symbolism of death, its connation and meanings, were conceptualized according to a series of ideological and social imperatives necessary to achieve victory.” Men had to be sacrificed, according to those who felt that the nation was paying for the sin of slavery, as a punitive action before the healing process could begin. [6]
The concept of the good death extended to more than families, in some instances, it could be instrumental in how citizens dealt with the loss of political and military leaders. The death of Confederate General Thomas J. Jackson was documented in newspaper columns all across the country, and sources from the far south, Maine, as well as California all carried the story of one of the major events of the war. The San Francisco Bulletin, June 9, 1863, had a novel presentation of the story: it published a column with a Northern perspective and a separate one with the Southern view. Both Northern and Southern versions referenced Jackson’ effectiveness as a commander as well as his piety, and described his good death. “He never, in all the occupations of the camp, or temptations of his campaigns, lost the fervor of his piety, or remitted his Christian duties.” Other articles described Jackson’s deathbed with his wife present and his words recorded as he made the transition to death provided solace to the citizens who would mourn Jackson’s death. [7]
The prospect of sudden death on the battlefield or a slow painful death by disease reinforced the importance of religion to believers and introduced the faith to thousands of converts through extensive revivals during the war. The Augusta Chronicle, a Georgia newspaper, in its June 27, 1863 ran a column that described the immediacy that evangelicals felt in making sure that southern soldiers were exposed to the Word, and served as a reassurance to families at home as well. “It is a source of rejoicing and unspeakable joy, to know that a general religious revival has for some time prevailed in General Bragg’s army. Thousands have been converted.” The article emphasizes the newfound need for religion among the soldiery. “ A great anxiety and interest exists among the troops for reading religious works which they seem to hunger for.” An additional benefit of faith in the camp: “Gambling and profanity are now almost unheard of.” [8]
In the antebellum period, many believed that men who embraced Christianity made poor soldiers. Historian Kurt O. Berends in his essay, Wholesome Reading Purifies and Elevates the Man, writes, “This belief found its roots in southern notions of honor and manliness” and Berends then touches the other important stigma of pre-war Christian faith, as “ the perception of Christianity as feminine, gentle, and pure.” There had to be a resolution of how men could embrace the hope of heaven and the afterlife, the only mechanism available to prepare these men in case of death during the war. Idealized soldier leaders such as Lee and Jackson publicly embraced Christianity and made acceptance of religious made the common soldier more likely to embrace the faith. “Before the war, books on heaven were few in number and not concrete in meaning and description” writes Philip Shaw Paludan in Religion and the Civil War, and that“Ideas of heaven were changed by this war, from a rather distant and strange place to a home which the boys could return.”[9] This change was an evolution of thought of how religion influenced how dying was perceived: If the common soldier could be assured that upon his death he would be immediately in heaven and at peace, it made him more likely to challenge the enemy on the battlefield. Additionally, it brought peace to families at home when loves ones were lost in battle.[10]
Public support of the war was a concern for both Union and Confederate governments. The era of photography that began just as the war brought new awareness of the harsh realities of death and suffering on the battlefield. Although most newspapers did not include photographs, they were widely distributed on broadside publications. The Library of Congress website contains digitized images that would have been seen by both northerners and southerners. The Library of Congress’s web site described the process:
“During the Civil War, the process of taking photographs was complex and time-consuming. Two photographers would arrive at a location. One would mix chemicals and pour them on a clean glass plate. After the chemicals were given time to evaporate, the glass plate would be sensitized by being immersed — in darkness — in a bath solution. Placed in a holder, the plate would then be inserted in the camera, which had been positioned and focused by the other photographer. Exposure of the plate and development of the photograph had to be completed within minutes; then the exposed plate was rushed to the darkroom wagon for developing. Each fragile glass plate had to be treated with great care after development — a difficult task on a battlefield.” [11]
Photographs also had profound impacts on public support of the war efforts and sparked new entrepreneurial efforts among photographers. Photographers ventured to the battlefields days after the conflict and made images of dead soldiers, sometimes manipulating the position of bodies for ‘artistic’ effect, such as the infamous Devil’s Den photograph.[12] Images of the dead covering battlefields changed the nature of warfare and public perception of the suffering and consequences of war, which before the civil War, was regulated to the sketchpad or paintbrush.
At the outset of the Civil War, America had no formal method to notify the family of a soldier’s death, no mechanism for bringing home soldiers remains or National Cemeteries to bury them.[13] The return of remains to Northern soil became one of the biggest concerns when families dealt with a family members death. Rumors persisted in the North throughout the war that Southern troops abused Union soldiers remains, or left them on the field to rot. “One Northern minister angrily insisted, ‘Not satisfied with the victory won, to add ignominy to defeat, the rebels buried our men with their faces downward, and took their bones for drumsticks and finger-rings, and their skulls for goblets and punchbowls.”[14] Whether these rumors proved true or not, they greatly aggravated the anxiety that soldier’s family felt if the body could not be located, or transported home. It was important for other reasons to return soldiers remains home: “Soldiers do not want their dead comrades to fall into the hands of the enemy. Nor does the government, although for different reasons” writes Michael Sledge, “ A country may win a battle or even a war, but if the adversary possesses its soldiers remains, it is a constant reminder and certain acknowledgement, the enemy controlled not only the field of battle but also some of the victors might.”[15]
In normal circumstances, “Even when death or a life threatening injury occurred as a result of an accident or while traveling, an effort was made to bring the victim home” writes Gary Laderman. The long distances from home where battles occurred caused the traditional death scene impossibility for most soldiers during the war, especially those who fought for the Union. At the beginning of the war, many religious followers considered the practice of embalming a sacrilege. However, the desire of the families to bring home the remains of sons and husbands necessitated a relaxation of the reluctance to use the method to preserve the body. Newspaper advertisements of the period make claims that history has proved false, however, entrepreneurs relied on the emotions of bereaved family members who placed their hope in the new preservation technologies. Appearing November 1861 in the Daily National Intelligencer, a newspaper solicitation in Washington D.C., an advertisement by Drs. Charles D. Brown and Joseph R. Alexander offered an alternative to embalming. “Petrifying,” the ad describes the effect of the unusual treatment. “The process renders the body in a short time hard and firm like marble, without distortion or discoloring, which shall be preserved for all time.” An additional benefit, the ad reads, “even the grave clothes are preserved from mildew and decay.”[16] Bizarre concoctions such as these soon gave way to more conventional preservation techniques as the war wore on and the death numbers increased.
There were differences in funerals of soldiers of rank and the common foot soldier. The Salem Register newspaper, dated April 4, 1862 described the funeral of Young Brooks of Co. F. 23rd Regiment, who died as a result of a wound sustained in battle. “There is something very solemn and impressive in the burial ceremony of a private soldier,” wrote the author, “more so than in the pomp and pageantry of attending the sepulture of an officer of rank.” [17] The community embraced the funeral of the fallen hero, and the sense of sacrifice for the Union of the soldier and his family was paramount in the article. Similar obituaries appeared in Southern newspapers, and in areas of mixed loyalties, violent outbursts sometimes occurred. 28 days after the Salem Register story ran, The Augusta Chronicle, May 5, 1862 edition described the funeral of a Confederate soldier that was disrupted by Unionists. Tragically, later that same day as a result an argument regarding the incident ensued and left a prominent citizen dead of a gunshot wound. [18]
Perhaps the greatest testament of change in public perception of death in the Civil War can be directly related to the actions that President Abraham Lincoln set in motion to honor the sacrifice of soldiers. Addressing the gathered citizen at Gettysburg Pennsylvania, Lincoln “succeeded in incorporating the Union dead in the shared history, destiny, and physical landscape of the nation;” writes Gary Laderman, “ He also found a practical use for their remains inspiration for the living to continue fighting and dying.” [19] Lincoln found a way, in simple terms to consecrate the sacred ground to become the first national cemetery, a place where the soldier’s remains are placed in perpetual care of the government, who takes possession and responsibility for the soldier’s remains as a symbolic payment for their sacrifice.
In death, Lincoln perhaps had as much influence over the way that American saw death and sacrifice as he did while living. Assassinated when the war was essentially over, Lincoln’s death magnified the sense of sacrifice and loss that most Americans felt. In Philadelphia, as in most cities, grief and disbelief were common emotions. The newspaper City Intelligence, April 17, 1865, contained the similar emotional sentiments that ran in other announcements of the President’s death, however, the article also documents the reactions of the various faiths in the region. Lutheran, Jewish, Baptist, Dutch and Catholic churches each lamented the death of the president in sub columns in the article. The nation was left to justify the death of the cherished president in the same way that they had to come to grips with loss of husbands, sons, and brothers. The notion of the punishment of the nation for the sin of slavery, as it had become a prominent theme among religious citizens earlier in the war, was applied to the loss of Lincoln. “It becomes us to recognize God’s hand in judgment, “ the article reads, “ and each one should humble themselves before God and cry aloud for deep contrition, that he would turn from us all those evils which have called down our punishment, and in the midst of deserved wrath to remember mercy and take this orphaned country into His holy care and keeping.” [20]
The Civil War changed the way that Americans relate to death and dying of its citizens. At the onset of the war, death was a private matter that was based on strict beliefs of ritual and symbolism. The ‘good death’ required that a person die at hoe, in his or her own bed, with their family present. It was important that the dying person make a deathbed confessional of sin and a statement of belief in Jesus Christ. After death occurred, family members enacted prescribed rituals of preparation of the deceased, which included cleansing and dressing the body. Preparation complete, the body was made available for viewing in order for the living to gain a sense of closure and finality of the loss of the loved one. Burial would occur in the prescribed place and according to the ritual of the religion and family. It was considered sacrilege for other than family members to care for the deceased or to leave the responsibility for burial to other than family members.
The Civil War made the concept of the ‘good death’ an unattainable goal in most cases. Men died in far away locales in horrific numbers that made quick interment into shallow graves a necessity. Some families attempted to recover remains of loved ones, and new technologies such as embalming appeared to facilitate the preservation of bodies for the trip home. The federal government began National cemeteries to honor the men who died in service to the country.
One of the greatest changes that the war brought to the perception of death was the relaxation of religious ritual concerning the ‘good death’ and the evolution of thought that previously held that men of faith could not be efficient and effective soldiers. Additionally, the rise of the funeral industry and implementation of standardized preservation methods came as a result of government programs. No less important or impactful was the replacement of the deceased family’s role in preparation of the dead for preservation, viewing, and burial to that of paid professionals, a practice that has since become the standard in much of North America.
Of most importance however, is that during the Civil War, the federal government acknowledged the sacrifices of its soldiers and their families and made attempts to become the caretaker of those who died and their families in the service to their country.
Bibliography
American Experience, “Death in the Civil War” Produced by Robin Espionla, Bonnie Lafave, and Ric Burns. (2012 WGBH Educational Foundation, Steeplechase Films) 2012. Chapter 1.
Augusta Chronicle (Lexington), “Brutal Outrage in Lexington, KY,” May 7, 1862, sec.
- Accessed November 20, 2012 at http://infoweb.newsbank.com.
Augusta Chronicle. “The State of [illegible] in Bragg’s Army” June 27, 1863. Vol:
XXVII, Issue 154. Augusta GA. Accessed November 20, 2012 at
Berends, Kurt O. “Wholesome Reading Purifies and Elevates the Man. The religious
Military Press in the Confederacy”. In Religion and the American Civil War, edited by Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Regan Wilson. Oxford University Press 1998.
Boston Recorder, “Death Notice”, December 09, 1857, Volume XXXII, Issue 49, Page
195, Boston Massachusetts. Accessed November 20, 2012 at
Colman, Penny. Corpses, Coffins, and Crypts: A History of Burial. New York: Henry Holt, 1997.
“Civil War Photographs: Taking Photographs at the Time of the Civil War.” American
Memory from the Library of Congress – Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/c
Daily National Intelligencer, November 30, 1861. Vol: XLIX, Issue 15383, Washington
D.C.Accessed November 20, 2012 at http://infoweb.newsbank.com.
Faust, Drew Gilpin. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War.
New York: Vintage Books, 2009.
Gardner, Alexander. “The Case of The Moved Body.” American Memory from the
Library of Congress – Home Page.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwpcam/cwcam3a.html (accessed
November 25, 2012).
Holt, Daniel M. M.D. A Surgeon’s Civil War: The letters and Diary of Daniel M. Holt, M.D. Edited by James S. Greiner, Janet L. Coryell, and James R. Smither. 2000. Kent State University Press. (ebook Collection) Accessed November 19, 2012.
Kammen, Michael G. Digging up the Dead: A History of Notable American Reburials. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Laderman, Gary. The Sacred Remains: American Attitudes Toward Death, 1799-1883.. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Neff, John. Honoring the Civil War Dead. Lawrence Kansas. University Press of
Kansas. 2004.
Paludan, Phillip Shaw. Religion and the American Civil War. Oxford, Oxford University
Press. 2008.
Salem Register, “A Soldier’s Funeral,” April 10, 1862. Newspaper. Salem Massachusetts.
Accessed November 20, 2012 at http://infoweb.newsbank.com.
San Francisco Bulletin. “Facts and Incidents Connected with the Death Stonewall
Jackson.” June 09, 1863; Volume: XVI; Issue: 54; San Francisco, California
Accessed November 20, 2012 at http://infoweb.newsbank.com.
Sledge, Michael. Soldier Dead: How We Recover, Identify, Bury, and Honor Our Military Fallen. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.
The City Intelligence. “President Lincoln’s Death. Reception of the News in This City.”
Philadelphia Inquirer. April 04, 1865.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Accessed
November 20, 2012 at http://infoweb.newsbank.com.
[1]Drew Gilpin Faust. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. (New York: Vintage Books, 2009) Preface
[2] Gary Laderman. The Sacred Remains: American Attitudes Toward Death, 1799-
- (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999) 52
[3] Faust, 163
[4] “Death Notice,” Boston Recorder, 12-09-1857, Volume XXXII, Issue 49, Boston Massachusetts.
[5] Daniel M. Holt, M.D. A Surgeon’s Civil War: The letters and Diary of Daniel M. Holt, M.D. Eds. James S. Greiner, Janet L. Coryell, and James R. Smither. 2000. Kent State University Press. (ebook Collection, (EBSCO host) Accessed November 19, 2012.
[6] Laderman, 98
[7] “Facts and Incidents Connected with the Death Stonewall Jackson”.San Francisco Bulletin, published as Evening Bulletin; Date: 06-09-1863; Volume: XVI; Issue: 54.
[8] “The State of [illegible] in Bragg’s Army” Augusta Chronicle. June 27, 1863. Vol: XXVII, Issue 154, Page 4.
[9] Phillip Shaw Paludan, Religion and the American Civil War. (Oxford University Press. Oxford. 2008). 30
[10] Kurt O. Berends. “Wholesome Reading Purifies and Elevates the Man. The Religious Military Press in the Confederacy.” In Religion and the American Civil War. Edited by Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Regan Wilson. (Oxford University Press 1998). 136
[11] “Civil War Photographs: Taking Photographs at the Time of the Civil War.” American Memory from the Library of Congress – Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml
[12] Alexander Gardner. “The Case of The Moved Body.” American Memory from the Library of Congress – Home Page. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/cwpcam/cwcam3a.html (accessed November 25, 2012).
[13] American Experience, “Death in the Civil War” Produced by Robin Espionla,
Bonnie Lafave, and Ric Burns. (2012 WGBH Educational Foundation, Steeplechase
Films). 2012. Chapter 1.
[14] Michael Kammen, Digging Up the Dead, A History of Notable American Reburials. (The University of Chicago Press. 2010).104
Kammen cites John Neff, Honoring the Civil War Dead. (University Press of Kansas. 2004). 56-57, 116-17
[15] Michael Sledge. Soldier Dead: How We Recover, Identify, Bury, and Honor Our
Military Fallen. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). 2
[16] “Advertisement”, Daily National Intelligencer, November 30, 1861. Vol: XLIX, Issue 15383, Washington D.C.
[17] “A Soldier’s Funeral,” Salem Register, April 10, 1862. Salem, Mass.
[18] “Brutal Outrage in Lexington, KY,” Augusta Chronicle (Lexington), May 7, 1862.
[19] Laderman,125
[20] “President Lincoln’s Death. Reception of the News in This City.” City Intelligence. Philadelphia Inquirer. 04-17-1865. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Chuck Lott Publications 