Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America 2 volumes

Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America

This page intentionally left blank

Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America

A–P VOLUME 1

William Pencak, Editor

Copyright 2009 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of the veteran in America / edited by William Pencak. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–34008–6 (set : hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–34009–3 (vol. 1 : hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–34010–9 (vol. 2 : hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–08759–2 (set : ebook) — ISBN 978–0–313–08760–8 (vol. 1 : ebook) — ISBN 978–0– 313–08761–5 (vol. 2 : ebook) 1. Veterans—United States—Encyclopedias. I. Pencak, William, 1951– UB357.E53 2009 305.9´0697097303—dc22 2009020928 13 12 11 10 9

1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

From one perspective, I am dedicating this book to all the veterans throughout American history, from those who fought with George Washington to my godson Peter Schlegel, who just returned from a year in Iraq. They have made it possible for me to sit in my study, rummage through books, journals, and Web sites, and meet if only in cyberspace the host of fine scholars who have assisted me in bringing this encyclopedia to completion. But more narrowly, I would like to dedicate it to my personal ‘‘Greatest Generation’’—my parents, aunts, and uncles. Harriett Pencak, Max and Andrew Borgwardt, June Pappalardo, Fred Abraham, and in memory of Charles Pencak, Leonard, Virginia, and Trudy Borgwardt, George and Peaches Schlegel, and John Pappalardo. These men and women either served overseas or supported efforts on the home front during the Second World War so that we can enjoy the world we do today. We complain a lot, and we should, to keep the people running things reasonably honest. But imagine if the other side had won. I would also like to dedicate the book to the memory of the great opera singer Ernestine Schumann-Heink (1861–1936) whose sons fought on both sides in World War I, who is mentioned on page 151 of the encyclopedia, and who did everything she could to help veterans.

This page intentionally left blank

About the Editor and Contributors

THE EDITOR William Pencak, Professor of History at Penn State University, is the author of For God and Country: The American Legion, 1919–1941 (1989) and War, Politics, and Revolution in Provincial Massachusetts (1981). His latest book, Jews and Gentiles in Early America: 1654–1800 (2005), was runner-up for the National Book Award in American Jewish History.

THE CONTRIBUTORS James S. Bailey received his B.S. from West Point and his M.A. from Penn State, both in History. He served for ten years in the U.S. Army before he retired on a disability. He has worked as an Interpretive Ranger for the National Park Service at Antietam National Battlefield and currently works for the U.S. Department of State. He is the author of ‘‘Two Winters of Discontent: Valley Forge and Morristown,’’ in Pennsylvania’s Revolution, edited by William Pencak (2009). Benjamin R. Beede, an army veteran, is now a Librarian Emeritus, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. He holds an M.A. in political science and an M.L.S. from Rutgers. He co-authored The Legal Sources of Public Policy (1977), edited or compiled several reference books, including The War of 1898 and U.S. interventions 1898–1934: An Encyclopedia (1994) and has had articles in The Historian, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Policy Studies Journal, and Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, among other journals. Daniel Blackie is a doctoral candidate at the Renvall Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland, and a member of the Finnish Graduate School for North and Latin American Studies. He is writing his Ph.D. thesis on the experience of disabled veterans of the American Revolution.

vii

viii

|

About the Editor and Contributors

Arthur W. Blaser received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Ohio State University in 1979 and his J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law in 1990. He is Professor of Political Science at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has contributed to the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Human Rights Quarterly, Disability Studies Quarterly, and New Political Science. He was in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. Al Carroll is a Fulbright Senior Scholar (Indonesia) who has taught history at Arizona State University, St. Phillip’s College, and Hasanuddin University. He specializes in cross cultural comparative studies of indigenous veterans of modern militaries. His first book, Medicine Bags and Dog Tags: American Indian Veterans from Colonial Times to the Second Iraq War, was published in 2007 by the University of Nebraska Press. Justin Corfield was born in London, England, and gained his doctorate in history at Monash University, Australia, with his thesis on the political history of the Cambodian government from 1970 until 1975. Since 1993 he has been teaching history and international relations at Geelong Grammar School, Australia. He has written and edited several books on Australian, Cambodian, and Singapore history. Kerry Dexter has a B.A. from Rollins College and has done graduate work at Florida State University. She is a contributing writer to The MTVi Group’s award-winning music news site, SonicNet, a correspondent for VH1.com, folk music editor at Barnes & Noble online, and has written, interviewed, and photographed extensively for publications in the field of music. Darius V. Echeverrı´a, Ph.D., Temple University, has since 2006 taught at Rutgers University-New Brunswick with an initial appointment in the Department of History. A year later, he joined the faculty of the Department of Latino and Hispanic Caribbean Studies. His published scholarship focuses on inequality and social policy, cycles of community agency, and electoral participation and incorporation into the American political system, particularly as they relate to Latino/a Studies and Mexican American history. Michael D. Gambone is Professor of History at Kutztown University and the author of The Greatest Generation Comes Home: The Veteran in American Society (2005), Capturing the Revoution: The United States, Central America, and Nicaragua, 1961–1972 (2001), and Eisenhower, Somoza, and the Cold War in Nicaragua, 1953–1961 (1997). Dr. Gambone was a former U.S. Army paratrooper who served in the 82nd Airborne Division. He deployed to Iraq in 2006 and served a tour of duty in the city of Mosul. Amy S. Greenberg is Professor of History at Penn State and the author of Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum American Empire (2005) and Cause for Alarm: The Volunteer Fire Compay in the Nineteenth Century City (1998). Holly M. Kent is a doctoral candidate in the Department of History at Lehigh University where she is writing on women’s antislavery literature in the nineteenth-century United States. She is the chief co-editor of Thirdspace: A Journal of Feminist History and Culture.

About the Editor and Contributors C. Douglas Kroll is Associate Professor of History at the College of the Desert in Palm Desert, California. Mark F. Leep, M.A., J.D., is an attorney and independent historian in Richmond, Virginia, and a former Marine Corps officer. His essays and reviews on the history of veterans’ benefits legislation and social history of the American military have appeared in several reference works and journals. Mr. Leep is currently researching the legislative and legal history of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps relations during the frigate navy era. William C. Lowe is Professor of History and Dean of the College of Arts and Science at Ashford University in Iowa. He received his Ph.D. from Emory University and has published numerous articles on British and American history. He is currently researching Civil War commemoration in Iowa. He retired from the Army Reserves with the rank of major. John E. Maass has a Ph.D. in early American history from Ohio State University and is currently a historian with the U.S. Army Center of Military History. Cesar Campiani Maximiano is co-author with Jose Goncalves of Brothers In Arms: A Platoon of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force in World War II, published by CODEX in Portuguese in 2005, and other works on the history of World War II. He teaches contemporary and military history and obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Sa˜o Paulo. Lincoln Austin Mullen received his M.A. in History from Bob Jones University in 2008. He is currently Reference Coordinator at the Mack Library at Bob Jones University. Stephen R. Ortiz has a Ph.D. from the University of Florida and is Assistant Professor of History at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Beyond the Bonus March and GI Bill: How Veteran Politics Shaped the New Deal Era (2009) and several journal articles. His article ‘‘The ‘New Deal’ for Veterans: The Economy Act, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Origins of New Deal Dissent,’’ was awarded the 2007 Moncado Prize by the Society for Military History for best article in the 2006 Journal of Military History. Jonathan Newell received a Master of Divinity from Bob Jones University and is currently on the pastoral staff of a Baptist church in New Hampshire. He is also an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve chaplain candidate program and published ‘‘Billy Sunday’s 1923 Evangelistic Campaign in Columbia, S.C.,’’ in the Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association in 2008. Joseph Rosenblum received his Ph.D. in English from Duke University in 1980. He is a librarian at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, the author of Shakespeare: An Annotated Bibliography (1992) and A Reader’s Guide to Shakespeare (1998), and is a performer of Falstaff at Stratford-on-Avon in England.

|

ix

x

|

About the Editor and Contributors

Jeremy K. Saucier is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Rochester. The subject of his dissertation is ‘‘Army Advertising and the Politics of Memory and Culture in Post-Vietnam America.’’ Daniel Sauerwein is a Ph.D. student in History at the University of North Dakota. He holds an M.A. in History from the University of North Dakota and a B.A. in History from Illinois College. He has reviewed books for The Journal of Military History, HNet, and On Point: The Journal of Army History, and has written several articles for the History News Network. John Southard is a Ph.D. candidate at Texas Tech University specializing in the Vietnam War. He has previously published in the Dictionary of American History. Darlene Spitzer-Antezana is Associate Professor of History at Prince George’s Community College and is a Ph.D. candidate in African American History at Morgan State University, both in Maryland. John Stoll teaches world history at L.C. Bird High School in Chesterfield, Virginia. He has an M.A. in history and a Master’s of Teaching from Virginia Commonwealth University. David P. Straub is a graduate student in the Central Eurasian Studies department at Indiana University. He spent a decade in the National Guard and is a specialist on Central Asia and China. William P. Toth has a Ph.D. in Literature and teaches at Heidelberg College. He has written extensively on literary, historical, and popular culture topics. Ryan Wadle is a Ph.D. candidate at Texas A&M University. He is currently working on his dissertation, ‘‘ ‘The Fourth Dimension of Naval Tactics’: The U.S. Navy and Public Relations, 1919–1941.’’ Andrew Jackson Waskey is Professor of Social Science at Dalton State College in Dalton, Georgia. He has been a frequent contributor on military subjects to encyclopedias, as well as on politics, history, religion and other subjects. William Whyte III has a Master of Arts in History from East Stroudsburg University and is Adjunct Professor of History at Northampton Community College in Pennsylvania.

Contents

List of Entries

xiii

List of Primary Documents

xvii

Guide to Related Topics

xxi

Preface

xxv

Acknowledgments

xxix

Introduction

xxxi

Timeline

xliii

The Encyclopedia

1

Primary Documents

477

Appendix I: Monuments, Memorials, and Museums: A State by State Guide

587

Appendix II: Veterans’ Organizations

705

Bibliography

711

Index

725

xi

This page intentionally left blank

List of Entries

Afghan War Veterans African American Veterans, American Revolution and War of 1812 African American Veterans, Civil War African American Veterans, Korean War African American Veterans, SpanishAmerican War African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War African American Veterans, World War I African American Veterans, World War II Agent Orange American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor American Gold Star Mothers American Indian Veterans American Indian Veterans, Individuals American Legion American Veterans Committee American War Mothers AMVETS Anti-War Veterans Associations Arlington National Cemetery

Blinded Veterans of America Blue Star Mothers Bonus March Brazilian Expeditionary Force Veterans Bunker Hill Monument Butler, Smedley (1881–1940) Cambodia War Veterans Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America Civil War Veterans Civil War Veterans Overseas Coast Guard Veterans Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations Confederate Veterans Associations Confederate Veterans in Brazil Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil) Daughters of the American Revolution Depleted Uranium Disabled Veterans Dodge, Grenville Mellen (1831–1916)

Battlefield Preservation Benefits

Early, Jubal (1816–1894)

xiii

xiv

|

List of Entries

Filipino-American Veterans Film and Veterans Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans Gettysburg National Cemetery Grand Army of the Republic Gulf War Syndrome Gulf War Veterans Hispanic American Veterans Housing Iraq War Veterans Iwo Jima Memorial Japanese American Veterans Jewish Veterans Korean War Veterans Lifton, Robert Jay (1926–) Literature and Veterans Logan, John (1826–1886) MacArthur, Douglas (1880–1964) McCain, John (1936–) Memorial Day Merchant Marine Veterans Merry, John Festus (1844–1917) Mexican Expeditions, 1914–1917 Mexican War Veterans Military Chaplains Association Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) Music and Veterans Naval Order of the United States Newburgh Conspiracy Non-Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA) O’Brien, Tim (1946–) Oldest Surviving Veterans

Pearl Harbor Survivors Association Peekskill Riot Pensions, Civil War Philippine War Veterans Polish Legion of American Veterans Politics, Veterans in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Preferences in Government Employment Prisoners of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) Reunions Revolutionary War Veterans Revolutionary War Veterans, Disabled Revolutionary War Veterans Overseas Roosevelt, Theodore (1858–1919) Russell, Harold (1914–2002) Russian Campaign of World War I Veterans Servicemen’s Readjustment Act Shell Shock Society of the Cincinnati Sons of the American Revolution Spanish-American War Veterans Stone, Oliver (1946–) Swofford, Anthony (1970–) Tripolitan War Veterans Tuberculosis, World War I Union Ex-Prisoners of War Association United States Submarine Veterans of World War II Van Zandt, James (1898–1986) Veterans Administration Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans Day Veterans’ Homes Veterans’ Hospitals Veterans of Foreign Wars Veterans of Foreign Wars National Home for Children

List of Entries Vietnam Memorial Vietnam Veterans Against the War Vietnam War Veterans Walter Reed Hospital Scandal War Dogs War of 1812 Veterans Washington Monument

Winter Soldier Investigation Women Veterans to 1900 Women Veterans, World War I to the Present Women’s Army Corps Veterans Association World War I Veterans World War II Veterans

|

xv

This page intentionally left blank

List of Primary Documents

Document 1: David Ramsay, The Life of George Washington: The Situation of Revolutionary War Veterans at the End of the War

477

a) Washington’s Letter to the Secretary of War Concerning the Treatment of Veterans

477

b) Anonymous Letter to Officers Proposing a Military Coup if Their Demands Were Not Met

479

c) Washington’s Speech That Foiled the Proposed Coup d) Washington’s Letter to Congress on the Veterans’ Needs

481 482

e) Washington’s Outrage over Mutiny of Pennsylvania Soldiers

483

f) Washington’s Farewell to His Officers and to Congress

484

Document 2: The Institution of the Society of the Cincinnati Document 3: Aedanus Burke, Considerations on the Society or Order of Cincinnati Document 4: ‘‘An Old Soldier: An Affecting Narrative’’ Document 5: Daniel Webster, An Address Delivered at the Laying of the Cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument Document 6: Nathanael Hawthorne, The Life of Franklin Pierce Document 7: Edward D. Mansfield, The Life and Services of Winfield Scott Document 8: Stephen Foster, ‘‘I’m Nothing But a Plain Old Soldier’’ Document 9: Edward Everett, The ‘‘Other’’ Gettysburg Address Document 10: Herman Melville, Civil War Poetry: ‘‘On the Slain Collegians’’ and ‘‘A Meditation’’

xvii

485 488 490 491 495 497 499 500 506

xviii

|

List of Primary Documents

Document 11: Walt Whitman, Civil War Poetry: ‘‘Dirge for Two Veterans’’ and ‘‘Lo, Victress on the Peaks’’ Document 12: Confederate Widows and Memorials: War Days in Fayetteville, North Carolina Document 13: John A. Wyeth, With Sabre and Scalpel: A Confederate Veteran Defends the Ku Klux Klan Document 14: Dabney Herndon Maury, Recollections of a Virginian . . .: Confederate Veterans Create the Southern Historical Society and Honor Their ‘‘Lost Cause’’ Document 15: John S. Robson, How a One-Legged Rebel Lives Document 16: Checking Civil War Pension Excesses: Henry Jones Ford, The Cleveland Era Document 17: An Escaped Slave Woman’s Civil War Service Document 18: Oliver Wendell Holmes’s Memorial Day Address (1884) Document 19: Oliver Wendell Holmes, ‘‘The Soldier’s Faith’’ (1895) Document 20: Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Riders Document 21: Edward A. Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers in the SpanishAmerican War Document 22: Addie W. Hunton and Kathryn M. Johnson, Two Colored Women with the American Expeditionary Forces Document 23: Emmet J. Scott, The Official History of the American Negro in the World War Document 24: Joyce Kilmer, ‘‘In Memory of Rupert Brooke’’ Document 25: Kirke E. Simpson, Dedication of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Document 26: Wright Patman Argues for Immediate Payment of Adjusted Compensation (‘‘The Bonus’’) for World War I Veterans Document 27: The Leader of the Bonus March Comments on Its Motives and Fate Document 28: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Statement on Signing the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill), June 22, 1944 Document 29: Dixon Wecter, Why Do Veterans Organize? Document 30: John Kerry Testifies before Congress on Behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, 1971 Document 31: President Reagan Dedicates the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Statue in Washington, DC, 1984 Document 32: President Bill Clinton Speaks to Veterans of the Normandy Invasion on Its 50th Anniversary Document 33: Denise Nichols Testifies on the Persistence of ‘‘Gulf War Syndrome’’

510 511 514 517

521 523 525 526 529 531 534 536 542 544 545 549 553 554 556 559 563 565 567

List of Primary Documents Document 34: Opening Remarks of Herschal Gober at the 2000 National Summit on Women Veterans Issues Document 35: Deputy Secretary for Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield Testifies on the Problems of American Indian Veterans Document 36: Vietnam Veterans of America Testify on the Persistent Effects of Agent Orange Document 37: Carolyn Baum, President of the American Occupational Therapy Association, Addresses Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Iraq and Afghan War Veterans Document 38: National Coalition for Homeless Veterans Testimony, 2008 Document 39: Suicide Among Iraq and Afghan Veterans

570 572 575 578

581 584

|

xix

This page intentionally left blank

Guide to Related Topics

Civil War Veterans Civil War Veterans Overseas Confederate Veterans Associations Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil) Dodge, Grenville Mellen (1831–1916) Early, Jubal (1816–1894) Gettysburg National Cemetery Grand Army of the Republic Merry, John Festus (1844–1917) Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) Pensions, Civil War Reunions Veterans’ Homes Union Ex-Prisoners of War Association Women Veterans to 1900

Activities/Events Bonus March Lost Cause. See Early, Jubal (1816– 1894); Confederate Veterans Associations Newburgh Conspiracy Peekskill Riot Politics, Veterans in Reunions Winter Soldier Investigation American Revolution African American Veterans, American Revolution and War of 1812 Bunker Hill Monument Daughters of the American Revolution Newburgh Conspiracy Revolutionary War Veterans Revolutionary War Veterans Overseas Society of the Cincinnati Sons of the American Revolution Washington Monument

Culture Film and Veterans Literature and Veterans Music and Veterans

Civil War African American Veterans, Civil War Arlington National Cemetery Benefits

Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars Afghan War Veterans Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans xxi

xxii

|

Guide to Related Topics

Gulf War Syndrome Gulf War Veterans Iraq War Veterans Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Swofford, Anthony (1970–) Veterans Affairs, Department of Walter Reed Hospital Scandal Ethnic/Gender/Other Groups African American Veterans, American Revolution and War of 1812 African American Veterans, Civil War African American Veterans, Korean War African American Veterans, SpanishAmerican War African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War African American Veterans, World War I African American Veterans, World War II American Indian Veterans American Indian Veterans, Individuals Brazilian Expeditionary Force Veterans Buffalo Soldiers. See African American Veterans, Civil War Chaplains. See Military Chaplains Association Cambodia War Veterans Coast Guard Veterans Disabled Veterans Dogs. See War Dogs Filipino-American Veterans Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans Hispanic American Veterans Native American Veterans. See American Indian Veterans Japanese American Veterans Jewish Veterans Merchant Marine Veterans Navajo Code Talkers. See American Indian Veterans, Individuals Oldest Surviving Veterans Prisoners of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA)

Tuskegee Airmen. See African American Veterans, World War II War Dogs Women Veterans to 1900 Women Veterans, World War I to the Present Health and Benefits Issues Adjusted Compensation. See Bonus March Agent Orange Benefits Bonus, Bonus Bill, Bonus Expeditionary Force. See Bonus March Bonus March Disabled Veterans Employment. See Preferences in Government Employment G.I. Bill of Rights. See Servicemen’s Readjustment Act Gulf War Syndrome Homes. See Veterans’ Homes Hospitals. See Veterans’ Hospitals Housing Mental Illness. See Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Shell Shock Pensions, Civil War Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Preferences in Government Employment Servicemen’s Readjustment Act Soldiers Homes. See Veterans’ Homes Shell Shock Tuberculosis, World War I Veterans of Foreign Wars Veterans’ Homes Veterans’ Hospitals Walter Reed Hospital Scandal Individuals Butler, Smedley (1881–1940) Dodge, Grenville Mellen (1831–1916) Early, Jubal (1816–1894) Lifton, Robert Jay (1926–) Logan, John (1826–1886) MacArthur, Douglas (1880–1964)

Guide to Related Topics McCain, John (1936–) Merry, John Festus (1844–1917) O’Brien, Tim (1946–) Roosevelt, Theodore (1858–1919) Russell, Harold (1914–2002) Stone, Oliver (1946–) Swofford, Anthony (1970–) Van Zandt, James (1898–1986) Memorials and Holidays See Appendix II for a list of monuments, memorials, and museums by state/ territory Arlington National Cemetery Armistice Day. See Veterans Day Decoration Day. See Memorial Day Battlefield Preservation Bunker Hill Monument Gettysburg National Cemetery Iwo Jima Memorial Memorial Day Tomb of the Unknown Soldier/Tomb of the Unknown. See Arlington National Cemetery Veterans Day Vietnam Memorial Washington Monument Organizations See Appendix I for a list of veterans’ associations American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor American Gold Star Mothers American Legion American Veterans Committee American War Mothers AMVETS Anti-War Veterans Associations Blinded Veterans of America Blue Star Mothers Bonus March Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America

Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations Confederate Veterans Associations Daughters of the American Revolution Department of Veterans Affairs. See Veterans Affairs, Department of Disabled American Veterans. See Disabled Veterans Gold Star Mothers. See American Gold Star Mothers Grand Army of the Republic Jewish War Veterans of America. See Jewish Veterans Military Chaplains Association Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) Naval Order of the United States Non-Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA) Pearl Harbor Survivors Association Polish Legion of American Veterans Society of the Cincinnati Sons of the American Revolution United Confederate Veterans. See Confederate Veterans Associations Union Ex-Prisoners of War Association United States Submarine Veterans of World War II Veterans of Foreign Wars Veterans Administration Veterans Bureau. See Veterans Administration Veterans Affairs, Department of Vietnam Veterans Against the War Women’s Army Corps Veterans Association Vietnam War African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War Agent Orange Cambodia War Veterans McCain, John (1936–) O’Brien, Tim (1946–) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

|

xxiii

xxiv

|

Guide to Related Topics

Stone, Oliver (1946–) Vietnam Memorial Vietnam Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation Wars Entry Afghan War Veterans Civil War Veterans Civil War Veterans Overseas Confederate Veterans in Brazil Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil) Gulf War Veterans Iraq War Veterans Korean War Veterans Mexican Expeditions, 1914–1917 Philippine War Veterans Revolutionary War Veterans Revolutionary War Veterans, Disabled Revolutionary War Veterans Overseas Russian Campaign of World War I Veterans Spanish-American War Veterans Tripolitan War Veterans Vietnam War Veterans War of 1812 Veterans World War I Veterans World War II Veterans World War I African American Veterans, World War I American Gold Star Mothers American Legion American War Mothers Arlington National Cemetery Benefits Blue Star Mothers Bonus March

Butler, Smedley (1881–1940) Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America Preferences in Government Employment Russian Campaign of World War I Veterans Shell Shock Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. See Arlington National Cemetery Tuberculosis, World War I Van Zandt, James (1898–1986) Veterans Day Veterans of Foreign Wars Veterans’ Hospitals World War I Veterans World War II African American Veterans, World War II American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor American Veterans Committee AMVETS Blinded Veterans of America Brazilian Expeditionary Force Veterans Filipino-American Veterans Japanese American Veterans MacArthur, Douglas (1880–1964) Merchant Marine Veterans Navajo Code Talkers. See American Indian Veterans, Individuals Pearl Harbor Survivors Association Peekskill Riot Russell, Harold (1914–2002) Servicemen’s Readjustment Act United States Submarine Veterans of World War II Women’s Army Corps Veterans Association

Preface

Preparing the Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America instantly poses a problem: what is to be its scope? To focus on the military experiences of veterans when they were soldiers—that is, before they became veterans—would require hundreds rather than only two volumes. The military history of the United States has been told many times, and histories of particular units and the memoirs of service personnel fill a major part of almost any public library. To put it awkwardly, but the only way that accurately describes the encyclopedia, this work (for the most part) concentrates on what military personnel did after they left the service in matters (for the most part) pertaining to their military careers. I add ‘‘for the most part’’ because there are some items that are so interesting—such as who were the oldest veterans of a given war, for instance—that I have included them anyway. To provide an example of what the encyclopedia covers and what it does not: it deals with the Grand Army of the Republic, the largest Union veterans’ association to emerge after the Civil War, and its general efforts to obtain benefits and promote patriotism, along with public support and criticism of its activities. But the encyclopedia does not attempt to deal with what the GAR’s members were doing in their daily lives, apart from how these items related to or were affected by their military experiences or the work of the GAR itself. Nevertheless, the real world is never as clear as the definitions and categories we devise to make it manageable. The average reader will neither need, nor want, a general history of the Civil War or be interested in the fact that the average soldier was a young white man. However, in dealing with African American, Native American, women, Hispanic, gay and lesbian, or other minority veterans, a good deal of the work veterans and their associations perform is dedicated simply to achieving recognition of the fact that they served, and usually served well, in the armed forces. Hence, in such cases, or in dealing with little-known events like the Latin American expeditions of the early-twentieth century, it is necessary to provide some information about who the veterans were and what role they played in the American military experience. xxv

xxvi

|

Preface

Following the A–Z entries, the encyclopedia offers a collection of documents which illustrate the experiences of veterans from the American Revolution to the present. These include speeches, poems, and other writings honoring veterans, their personal accounts, and discussions of problems veterans face readjusting to civilian life, especially since the Vietnam War. To aid readers in finding the documents (many of which are excerpted) I have included Web sites as well as printed texts where possible. This encyclopedia has two appendices. The shorter Appendix II lists veterans’ organizations currently active in the United States at the time this book went to press and how to contact them. Appendix I deals with memorials, monuments, and museums relating to veterans. These are an important part of the American landscape and serve to preserve understanding of American history and values from generation to generation. For people who want to learn about veterans, I have selected and described, briefly, many of the sites those interested in American veterans’ history would want to visit, grouped by state for convenience. (The Bunker Hill, Iwo Jima, Vietnam Memorials, the Washington Monument, and Gettysburg and Arlington National Cemeteries have their own entries.) The books listed in the bibliography and under further reading are a good way to learn about veterans, but to visit the physical artifacts that caring citizens have erected and assembled to honor veterans is a far better one. Please note that collections or exhibitions change: some museums serially exhibit a small percentage of very large collections. Web sites and telephone numbers also change: I have presented the most accurate, and what I believe to be relevant, information as of 2009. Please note as well to check with installations on military bases and property as to the sort of identification required for access. Some sites are only open seasonally; others may be visited all year although visitors’ centers might not always be open. Hours of course vary. I apologize if I have left out a memorial or monument with special meaning for anyone: nearly every town both in the North and in the South that sent men to the Civil War built a memorial in its town square. Many of these, like most tombstones, were premanufactured by companies that could provide communities without large funds with a suitable remembrance. The nation is dotted with veterans’ memorial highways, parks, and bridges, but unless there is some special object connected with them, I have not listed them as sites to visit. Readers should especially note that this encyclopedia offers neither legal advice nor provides a guide to obtaining veterans’ benefits such as admission to a veterans’ hospital or burial in a veterans cemetery. The ultimate place to get such information is from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) itself, which has an excellent Web site. Alternatively, the office of your congressional representative, and frequently your state legislator—they are supposed to deal with state matters but many will help with any government problem—is one of the two best places to go. The other is your local veterans post—most familiarly, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, or AMVETS—but also some of the other veterans’ organizations listed in the appendix of veterans organizations based on particular needs. These veterans’ groups usually but do not invariably require membership in order to use their services, but it is worthwhile to join. Veterans’ organizations are like political

Preface parties or churches: you do not have to approve of the national organization’s policies on big issues if you wish to join at the local level. If you pay your dues (where I live, Legion dues are about $25 per year) the local service officer—or if the post is too small, the nearest available one—can help you file claims forms, obtain legal help related to service matters if you need it, or will refer you to a county or state office if he or she cannot help. Social benefits of veterans’ associations are also considerable: good companionship, the satisfaction of working with others to help your community and fellow veterans, and food and drink at reasonable prices come immediately to mind. In addition to national veterans cemeteries, it should be noted that many states also have veterans’ benefits and cemeteries only available to veterans from these states (defined typically as having served there, currently living there, or both). For instance, veterans preference (how many additional points veterans receive on civil service exams) varies from state to state. Here, too, consult you local veterans’ organization or the office of your state legislator. Editing a book such as this, especially preparing the appendix where I read the stories of so many memorials and museums throughout the nation, it is impossible not to be amazed by the remarkable achievements of American veterans and those who honored them. The United States is a country where voluntary associations have abounded since the days of Benjamin Franklin—who founded a volunteer army to defend Pennsylvania in 1748—as in none other in human history. Doing good is accomplished through grass roots organizations rather than by administrative decree. The opportunity for people to band together to accomplish something locally, nationally, and internationally is thus encouraged in the United States to an extraordinary extent. It extends to military enlistment and service in wartime: whenever the American people believe their government is fighting for a worthwhile cause, they have responded unstintingly. (One measure of this belief is the number of congressmen who enlist, as 88 did during World War II). After the war is over, veterans in times of peace continue to keep alive through their associations and memorials the values for which they fought. Their success appears not only in thousands of memorial sites throughout the nation, in the parades every Memorial Day and the speeches on the Fourth of July, in the innumerable charitable works they perform, but also in the remarkable persistence of the American values for which they have fought more than 200 years. Note: Boldfaced entries throughout the text identify other terms included in the encyclopedia.

|

xxvii

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Barbara Gannon, author of a forthcoming history of African American veterans in the Grand Army of the Republic, for helpful advice on Civil War veterans and especially for alerting me to Lucy Nichols’s pension record, which is responsible for Document 15. I also thank the authors, many of whom wrote far more thorough and interesting entries than I had imagined possible. Finally, I have had the privilege of working with Mariah Gumpert as my editor and Christine McGlumphy as my copyeditor. They managed to combine helpful criticism with never-failing encouragement. All authors should be so fortunate.

xxix

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

The United States was the first modern nation to win independence from one of the great European powers. As such, its veterans, and those of the nations that have followed in its path, have taken on a new historical role. They were not mercenaries fighting for money, barbarians for plunder, or the poor conscripted or forced through poverty to fight for the rich as have been most soldiers in history. They were and are freedom fighters, ordinary citizens who left their civilian occupations to put their lives heroically on the line to give their fellow countrymen and their children a better future. Many who fought the War for Independence believed they were on a mission from God to restore freedom, an ideal which had become ‘‘a fugitive’’ that ‘‘had been hunted round the globe’’ in a world governed by tyrants, and to provide people from all nations who cherished liberty with ‘‘an asylum.’’ These were the words of Thomas Paine—himself an immigrant from England as recently as 1775—in his pamphlet Common Sense. It sold over 100,000 copies in 1776, about one for every three free families in the 13 colonies, and persuaded Americans that they ought to be fighting not to correct the wrongs of the British Empire, but to become the first large republic in the world since the days of ancient Rome. Indeed, revolutionary Americans took the example of Rome very seriously, as the architecture of the Capitol, the statues of Washington wearing a toga, and the very name ‘‘Senate’’ of the upper house of the legislature, shows. Cincinnatus, the Roman general who was called from his plough to head the army, refused any political posts or rewards, and returned to his fields immediately after the war, was the republic’s ideal soldier. The first major American city founded after the Revolution bore his name. The officers of the Continental Army who formed the nation’s first veterans’ association—the still functioning Society of the Cincinnati—chose that name to reflect the hope that they would follow in his footsteps. Cincinnatus presented the ideal citizen soldier who could defend the republic. He (and except for nurses and occasional women in disguise, all American soldiers were xxxi

xxxii

|

Introduction

‘‘he’’ until the twentieth century) would treat military service as a duty and a privilege, as the Selective Service or draft maintained during its existence from 1918 until 1972. The nation owed him nothing more than gratitude. Yet gratitude meant more than mere words. It was believed that veterans should not suffer unnecessarily for having devoted a substantial portion of their lives to the nation: specifically, they were entitled to reimbursement to put them on at least an even keel with those who had continued to work and prosper while they were in service (see also Benefits; Pensions, Civil War; Disabled Veterans). The failure of the nation to extend gratitude to veterans of the Revolution and future wars was one, and probably the principal, motivating factor for American veterans to form organizations. The actions of the first new nation’s veterans when they went unrewarded were frightening. Continental troops from Connecticut and Pennsylvania— two of the states whose men had served most consistently since 1775—mutinied in 1781 and 1783 when Congress ran out of money to pay them, chasing the legislature out of Philadelphia on the latter occasion. Continental officers for their part threatened—but thanks to George Washington’s intervention failed—to overthrow the government. It was not easy to get officers or men to serve without pay for over two years following the Battle of Yorktown as the diplomats negotiated the peace treaty while the British maintained their large army in New York City. Promised half-pay for life, the officers finally settled for five years’ full pay when the money became available. But through what is known as the Newburgh Conspiracy, where they threatened to overthrow the Congress, they recalled another Roman who served as a counter-model for what veterans could do: Caesar (see Revolutionary War Veterans). No human being was more vilified than Caesar in early America. ‘‘Caesar had his Brutus, Charles II had his Cromwell, and George III may profit by their example’’ Patrick Henry proclaimed to the Virginia House of Burgesses as the more conservative members shouted ‘‘treason.’’ Anonymous revolutionary writers signed themselves ‘‘Brutus’’ to honor his assassin, who had tried to save the Roman republic by murdering the man who destroyed it. Historically minded Americans sometimes named their children Brutus along with Washington, Montgomery (after the first American general killed in the Revolution, Richard Montgomery), Franklin, or Jefferson, which had never been first names before. Soldiers had not only saved the Roman republic; they destroyed it when it failed to satisfy their lust for wealth and power. No sooner had the Society of Cincinnati announced its existence than comparisons with Caesar and the Praetorian Guard raised their head. Thomas Jefferson was not alone in believing the Cincinnati would seek to establish a hereditary aristocracy by meeting secretly and conspiring to undermine the elected government. Such fears prompted the surprised members to stress instead two more innocent purposes: that the Cincinnati was formed to celebrate the ties of comradeship forged in battle and to perpetuate the memory of their heroic deeds. George Washington, its first president, only agreed to serve if it remained aloof from politics. Revolutionary War veterans received little from their governments. What we would consider benefits to which veterans were automatically entitled did not exist: surgeries

Introduction (except in Philadelphia and New York, which had hospitals) and recuperation occurred at home, and most health care was the province of midwives. Land was what veterans wanted from their government if they could not obtain the money to buy it, as most men at that date were or aspired to be farmers. Those who served for long periods in the Continental Army tended to be young men who had not yet acquired their plots. And since neither the federal government nor most states had any money until the 1790s, land was what they got. While some of the land was out west, threatened or controlled by Indians until the 1790s (such as Kentucky and Ohio), the states owned a great deal and made it available to former soldiers in lieu of cash. But there were no heroes’ welcomes for Revolutionary veterans, except greetings when they returned to their local communities. Most Revolutionary soldiers served in the militia, turning up when the British appeared in their vicinity, otherwise remaining at home the rest of the time. The Continental Army, which rarely numbered more than 10,000 men, melted away by gradual discharges and desertion between the victory at Yorktown on December 19, 1781, and the final evacuation of New York by the British on November 25, 1783. The only quasi-official ceremony that marked the end of the war was George Washington’s farewell to his officers at Fraunces Tavern on December 4. Battles and victories were celebrated between the Revolution and the Civil War, but little developed in the way of an identity, or common interest, on the part of veterans. Neither the War of 1812 nor the Mexican War engaged a large number of the nation’s males, and furthermore neither was truly national. New England for the most part opposed both wars, and substantial opposition existed in the Midwest to the Mexican War as well. Veterans of these wars who did develop associations did so in old or middle age. (See War of 1812 Veterans; Mexican War Veterans.) In the early-nineteenth century, however, as the Revolutionary generation was fading away, its experience became worth cherishing. Congress granted pensions for veterans who could prove they were indigent in 1818 and expanded them in 1831 (see Benefits). Monuments only appeared after a long delay. Maryland started planning the first public monument to Washington in 1810 but could not raise the funds to complete it until 1829. In 1825, the Bunker Hill Monument Association formed, although it was only finished in time for Daniel Webster to dedicate it as Whig delegates assembled for the 1844 presidential convention. The visit of the Marquis de Lafayette, who spent an entire year as the ‘‘nation’s guest’’ in 1824 and 1825, rekindled an appreciation for veterans, such as the 150 elderly men who were cheered lustily as they occupied three large wagons in the procession when Lafayette entered Philadelphia. Independence Hall was nearly auctioned off by the state of Pennsylvania before the French general persuaded the state to preserve its ‘‘sacred’’ walls. The new republic was not nostalgic: only in 1834 did the first statue of a revolutionary leader, Thomas Jefferson, appear in the nation’s capital, and that was because Captain Uriah Phillips Levy had arranged for it to be sculpted in Paris and then presented to the nation. Two years later, Levy bought a dilapidated Monticello for $2,500; in 1851, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association saved Washington’s house from destruction and still own and operate it today.

|

xxxiii

xxxiv

|

Introduction

Where veterans were valued, however, was in politics (see Politics, Veterans in). As modern democratic parties emerged, it became necessary for candidates to be attractive to a broad range of voters. War heroes who had not exposed their political beliefs—if any—to public scrutiny were the perfect candidates to defeat politicians who had been obliged to take stands on controversial issues. Andrew Jackson was the first presidential candidate to fulfill this prescription. George Washington, on the other hand, had been more than a military leader: he had in effect functioned as the national executive during the American Revolution, as his correspondence with Congress on matters pertaining to diplomacy and relations with the states shows. And if they were slow to honor their Revolutionary forebears, American men between the 1820s and the Civil War were raring to be soldiers themselves—or at least to play at it. Militia units, one more gaudily attired than the next, were ever available for parades, political rallies, and competitions to show off their drilling and horseback riding skills. It was these units that went eagerly off to the Civil War, confusing who was on which side until the standard blue and gray uniforms were adopted. Their idealism and naı¨ve enthusiasm postponed the draft until September 1862 in the South and July 1863 in the North. The Civil War massively imposed an awareness of veterans on the United States for the first time. The North had a population of about 18 million free people, the South of about 9 million: plausibly assuming one in five of these was a male of military age, about two-thirds of eligible Northerners and 90 percent of eligible Southerners fought. Confederate mobilization was as total as any war in world history. Casualties were 140,000 battle and 224,000 other deaths for the North, 74,000 battle and 59,000 other deaths for the South, with 281,000 Northern and (assuming a comparable ratio) 150,000 Southern wounded. Today’s United States population (just short of 300 million) is nearly ten times as much: comparably, that would be the inflicting of 2 million battle deaths, 3 million deaths from disease, and over 40 million veterans in the nation today. As many soldiers were killed in one month and one campaign (80,000 between early May and June 1864 in northern Virginia) as were killed in the Vietnam and Korean wars combined. Especially for Union soldiers in the South, disease was more deadly than bullets: General Ulysses S. Grant was actually reducing casualties by sending his troops into battle as fast as possible, thereby saving them from the greater rate of casualties in camp. Americans both Northern and Southern did not hesitate to show their appreciation for the unheard of sacrifices made by their troops. On May 23 and 24, 1865, the Grand Review occurred. Nearly 150,000 Union soldiers from the Army of the Potomac, led by their commander George Gordon Meade, and the Western Theatre armies, led by William T. Sherman, paraded past President Andrew Johnson, General Grant, and a grateful citizenry in Washington, DC. The states and national government cared for the disabled and aged, as best as they could in the impoverished South. Veterans’ homes housed the aged and infirm throughout the country: long before the United States recognized during the Great Depression that it needed to care for the unfortunate, the republic accorded Union (and only Union) veterans and their dependents their own welfare state. (See Civil War Veterans; Confederate Veterans Associations).

Introduction The post-Civil War era has gone down in history as an age of corruption, and Union veterans did not hesitate to get their slice of the pie. As the nation’s population grew from 31 to 76 million between 1860 and 1900, railroad mileage rose from 30,000 to 250,000, and cities grew exponentially (New York had a million people in 1860, three million in 1900), transportation and construction contracts and the customs service proved the most fertile grounds for graft. As there was no civil service in the United States until 1883 (and it took the assassination of President James Garfield two years earlier by an office-seeker to bring it into being), all jobs were given to members of the winning party at the appropriate level of government. To be sure, the Union veterans’ organization that emerged from the war, the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), was more than an arm of the Republican Party and means of obtaining jobs and pensions for its members. It also cared for veterans and their families and encouraged patriotism. But just as the public ceased to see the Republicans as the party that freed the slaves and as the tool of the ‘‘Robber Barons,’’ the heroic veterans came to be viewed as raiders of the public treasury. Pension bills (see Pensions, Civil War) for individual veterans were a sizeable percentage of congressional business, and Grover Cleveland (1885–1889; 1893–1897), the only Democrat to serve as president from 1861 to 1913, will probably forever hold the record for vetoing the most bills—nearly all of them private pension measures. During the tenure of his Republican successor, Benjamin Harrison, the GAR successfully lobbied Congress to grant a pension to every disabled Union Civil War veteran which was eventually extended to all Civil War veterans, along with their dependents and survivors, and to War of 1812 and Mexican War veterans. Some of these payments continued into the late-twentieth century and became something of a joke as very young women married elderly Civil War veterans as late as the 1930s to obtain lifelong annuities. Yet respect for veterans not only continued, it increased in the 1880s and 1890s as the arrival of millions of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe encouraged citizens to define ‘‘real’’ Americans as those who had put their lives on the line for the republic’s survival. At this time, hereditary societies like the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Sons of the American Revolution were formed by descendants of those who had served in that war. It is no accident the holiday that emerged from the Civil War was Memorial Day—at first Decoration Day—and it arose from the grass roots decoration of graves, which allowed many communities both North and South to claim that they originated it. We celebrate Independence Day for the Revolution (how many Americans know the day the peace treaty was signed?), but for the Civil War and subsequent wars we honor veterans, as Armistice Day from World War I has now become Veterans Day. Ulysses S. Grant was a largely unsuccessful president, yet his funeral in 1885 was the greatest in the nation since Lincoln’s, and the $600,000 needed to fund what is still the most monumental tomb in the United States was successfully, and quickly, raised in the largest fund-raising drive the world had yet seen. In fact, the years around 1890 not only witnessed the GAR’s greatest membership (nearly 400,000 or over a quarter of all surviving Union veterans), but also the most extensive commemoration of veterans in the nation’s history. Besides Grant’s Tomb,

|

xxxv

xxxvi

|

Introduction

the huge structures in the Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn, New York, central Indianapolis, downtown Cleveland, and the statues of Confederate heroes on Richmond, Virginia’s Monument Avenue all appeared approximately one generation following the war. Furthermore, the presence, or rather the omnipresence, of veterans in person, literature, classroom lessons, and political orations instilled in the next generation a culture of patriotism and a desire to be like the men in blue or gray (see Literature and Veterans). The response of President Theodore Roosevelt—who at the age of seven had witnessed Lincoln’s funeral processions pass by the window of his father’s New York house—to the Spanish-American War of 1898 embodied this mentality: ‘‘It wasn’t much of a war, but it was the only war we had.’’ Furthermore, with Southerners like Fitzhugh Lee commanding American troops, the ‘‘Splendid Little War’’ united soldiers from both sections; Union and Confederate soldiers also buried the hatchet at numerous Civil War reunions (see also Spanish-American War Veterans). When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, once again it did not need to conscript soldiers to fill its ranks. ‘‘Selective Service’’ was instituted by the War Department largely to prevent men eager to serve at the front but who had special skills such as typing, knowledge of foreign languages, or were able to drive trucks to serve where they could be most useful. President Woodrow Wilson personally prevented an aging Theodore Roosevelt from leading the troops once again as Wilson feared it would help Roosevelt’s political career. The war ended in an Allied victory in November 1918, after 4,700,000 Americans had been mobilized. The experience of war was quick and triumphant. The average American soldier had only a 50 percent chance of being sent to France and a 25 percent chance of seeing action. Nevertheless, the casualty rate (by one measure 53,000 killed in action, 63,000 other deaths, and 204,000 wounded) for an average period of six months in action per soldier was fully comparable to the appalling mortality the other powers endured for over four years. World War I veterans returned to a United States in 1919 and were greeted by strikes and radical political activity. They thus formed the American Legion, with Theodore Roosevelt Jr. at the head of the organizing committee, or joined the preexisting Veterans of Foreign Wars created by Spanish-American War veterans in 1913, which determined ‘‘To Keep the Spirit of the Great War Alive.’’ As the Legion advertised to recruit members in the first issue of the American Legion Weekly, published on July 4, 1919, After reading on one page of your newspaper all about the spread of Bolshevism . . . and your desponding and gloom increases as you read of riots on another page, more high cost of living news—just as you are reading about starving Europe and sinking into the last stages of melancholia—your read about THE AMERICAN LEGION__OH-H-BOY!! AIN’T IT A GRAND AND GLOR-R-RIOUS FEELING? About 850,000 eligible veterans joined the Legion in its first year—the number has varied between a fifth and a quarter of those eligible ever since—and the VFW— whose membership was restricted to those who actually served overseas—counted between 200,000 and 300,000 followers in the twenties and thirties.

Introduction Both the Legion and VFW offered their services to the government during the ‘‘Red Scare’’ of 1919 to 1921, serving as auxiliary police and riot troops, breaking strikes, and sometimes acting on their own to suppress radical and pacifist activities. They would intermittently resort to such tactics in the future, such as putting down strikes in California fields and shipyards in the thirties, or attacking attendees at Paul Robeson’s concert at Peekskill, New York, in 1949 (see Peekskill Riot). But they soon realized that controlling school boards and redirecting youthful energy from radical politics to the Little League Baseball teams and the Boy Scout troops they sponsored proved far more effectual and uncontroversial; they continue these activities today (see Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations). Both organizations have also supported strong defense measures against Communism and terrorism. World War I veterans had been mobilized and demobilized so quickly that no government agency existed to take care of their postwar needs. The main problem was two long-term health issues arising from the war that the contemporary hospital system could not handle: tuberculosis resulting from poison gas, and neuropathological diseases, commonly known as ‘‘shell shock,’’ largely the result of the persistent but irregular explosions that rocked the Western Front night and day. The newly formed Veterans Bureau got off to a rocky start when President Warren G. Harding appointed corrupt friends to run it, but the organization—which subsequently became the Veterans Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs—offered a system of veterans’ pensions, hospitals, and benefits that were set firmly in place by the midtwenties. The extent of these benefits, and the political pressure used by the American Legion in obtaining them, came under attack in the late 1920s as veterans’ expenditures climbed to a quarter of the national budget and disability pensions became easier to obtain. During the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration cut benefits by nearly a third in 1933 but maintained the loyalty of most veterans as they became eligible for New Deal welfare programs available to the general population. The most controversial veterans’ issue of the 1920s and 1930s, however, was the ‘‘Bonus,’’ a payment to veterans to compensate them for the time they spent during the war earning low military wages as prices skyrocketed at home. Passed by Congress in 1924—but not to be paid until 1945—veteran agitation to pay the Bonus at once as a means of alleviating misery climaxed during the Depression. Poor veterans, starting in Oregon, joined the Bonus March on Washington in 1932, where General Douglas MacArthur fired on the veterans’ camp against the orders of President Herbert Hoover, who asked him to remove them without shooting. The immediate payment of the Bonus passed in 1936 over President Roosevelt’s veto (see Bonus March). Veterans and their role in American society were extremely controversial in the twenties and thirties, both because of actual issues such as the Bonus or veterans’ support for defense expenditures, but also because critics saw in the American Legion a mirror of the powerful fascist movements in Europe, such as the Nazis in Germany and Fascists in Italy. The comparison reflected fear more than rationality: the Legion had no need or desire to overthrow the government. It was able to achieve nearly all its goals through traditional political channels and strongly supported constitutional authority. Its members did not wear military uniforms (only the familiar caps), elected

|

xxxvii

xxxviii

|

Introduction

its officers through democratic means—although as in all associations an active elite ran the show—and had black, Catholic, and Jewish members. It boasted of Jewish national chaplains and Catholic national commanders. Undisciplined conventions where liquor flowed both during and after Prohibition were the principal fault of the Legion, where thousands of members and hangers-on would tear up a city for a few days. The real parallel with fascism in inter-war America was the Ku Klux Klan, which at its peak in the early twenties had over five million members (over eight times the Legion’s). A militant and exclusively Protestant organization, it met secretly, was run by a self-selected (and corrupt) hierarchy, and its violence against Jews, Catholics, and blacks was a matter of systematic national policy rather than sporadic excess. The Legion’s anti-radical program was typical of conservatives throughout American history, who until the American Civil Liberties Union was founded after World War I in response to the excesses of the Red Scare, rarely concerned themselves with the rights of union organizers or socialist ‘‘agitators’’ despite the formal constitutional protections. Within reasonable limits, both the American Legion and VFW in fact have striven to remain apolitical. This means they will not actively endorse or fund candidates for political office, although the VFW changed this policy in 1979 to support lawmakers who favor its programs; however, the Legion and VFW both make it obvious through speeches, publications, and invitations to conventions which lawmakers oppose or support their agendas. They have traditionally tried to skirt controversial issues that would reduce membership: for instance in the 1920s the Legion attempted to avoid supporting or opposing both the Klan (to which many of its members belonged, while others hated it) or Prohibition. The right of black veterans to belong was left to the discretion of each state and post, as is the status of gay veterans at the present time. Like the nation itself, both the Legion and the VFW national organizations have followed generally conservative courses in the twentieth century while allowing for local diversity and initiatives (see Politics, Veterans in). World War II ended any debates about veterans’ benefits and organizations in the United States of the magnitude that had occurred over the previous 20 years. Sixteen million men and women served, 292,000 were killed in combat, 115,000 died from other causes, and 671,000 were wounded. As the draft had begun in 1940 and some service personnel were not discharged until 1946, many young Americans had given up to six years of their lives—as opposed to an infrequent maximum of two during the First World War—to a grateful nation. With sacrifices of this caliber, it only took minor political maneuvering for the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act—commonly known as the ‘‘GI Bill’’—put together by the American Legion to pass Congress in 1944. Granting liberal allowances for disabled veterans and their dependents, providing free care in veterans’ hospitals for war-related (and ultimately all) injuries and diseases, offering free burial plots, and providing allowances that permitted veterans to attend college or vocational school with full expenses paid, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act has generally been considered the most comprehensive and successful act of social welfare legislation in American history. (See World War II Veterans; Benefits.) Advocates for an expanded welfare state have frequently cited it to defend their position, whereas conservatives and the veterans’ organizations have argued

Introduction similar benefits should not be indiscriminate entitlements, but ought to be reserved for those who have served in the military. Veterans of Korea, Vietnam, recent conflicts in the Middle East, and the peacetime military have received variants of the GI Bill benefits. (See —Korean War Veterans; Vietnam War Veterans; and Gulf War Veterans.) Yet not until 2008, as it has become more difficult to find people willing to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, did some service personnel in those theaters receive benefits equal to the 1944 Bill (see Afghan War Veterans; Iraq War Veterans). In the years after World War II, both the American Legion and the VFW exploded in membership. In general, they have attracted on average between two and three million veterans each per year since 1945. Every eligible American president and nearly all Congressmen and state legislators with military service belong to one or both. Yet their generally conservative stands on political issues displeased liberals and veterans, who founded the American Veterans Organization (AMVETS) in 1946. Espousing causes such as integration of the armed forces before President Harry S Truman ordered it in 1950—the Legion and VFW avoided losing members by remaining silent—and supporting the United Nation—which many conservative veterans regard as either a waste of money or subservient to foreign interests—AMVETS has provided a liberal alternative to the larger organizations. Still, it has never numbered more than about 200,000 veterans and thus has much less political influence. Every major American war before Vietnam was fought by a cross-section of the population. In fact, in many wars, the willingness of the elite to sacrifice for a war they entered has usually exceeded that of the general population. Eighty-eight members of Congress resigned their seats to serve in World War II even though many were World War I veterans and too old to be drafted. Memorial walls at Ivy League universities list large numbers of men from famous families who died in the Civil and World Wars: for Harvard, three of the oldest four to die in World War II were Roosevelts: two sons of Theodore and the commander in chief himself. But few men are listed on these walls for Vietnam—I counted eight at Princeton—and these are invariably officers, men who wanted to serve. (No congressman vacated his seat to serve in Vietnam or the present Iraq War.) The nature of military service in Vietnam resulted in an abnormal situation that ultimately harmed its veterans. It paradoxically alienated the very men who were taking the most risks from the population for which they were fighting. Almost any college educated, wealthy young man could find alternative service (George W. Bush in the Texas National Guard) or wait out the war overseas (Bill Clinton at Oxford University in England). Tours of duty in Vietnam were limited to the second of two years for which predominantly lower and middle-class men were drafted. Further, as warfare becomes more sophisticated, more personnel are needed in the rear to support each man in the field. In Vietnam, the ratio was seven to one; by Iraq, it had become fifteen to one. Draftees were dying as career military and enlisted men avoided combat (see Vietnam War Veterans; African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War; Hispanic-American Veterans). Thus, the brunt of the service was borne disproportionately by the poor, the uneducated, and men of color. When they returned home, they were disliked both by antiwar (who considered them uncritical murderers for the upper class) and pro-war (who

|

xxxix

xl

|

Introduction

considered them incompetent) Americans. Care in veterans’ hospitals, many of which were providing long-term care for elderly veterans, planned for and run by World War II- and Korean-era veterans, was frequently unsympathetic and inadequate. It did not help that groups like Vietnam Veterans Against the War, regardless of the merits of their case, were not presented favorably by the media. Hard economic times in the early 1970s would have made it difficult enough for the sort of men who served in Vietnam to find employment without the stigma of being blamed for losing a war that their superiors had fought in a manner that was impossible to win. (Neither the editor nor the authors of this encyclopedia engage the still controversial questions of what winning in Vietnam meant, whether winning was possible, and whether victory would have been worthwhile.) Community recognition and better health care for Vietnam veterans have come slowly, usually as a result of their own lobbying (see Vietnam War Veterans). At the same time, closing hospitals and reducing these benefits has also been an attractive option for the governments since the Vietnam veteran population was neither as large nor as politically influential as those of the Civil and World Wars. Thus, the hospital and benefits system available to veterans from the Gulf, Afghan, and Iraq Wars was the severely truncated one left over from Vietnam rather than the system designed for veterans of World War I and II. Difficulties faced by both sets of veterans are similar. Vietnam veterans had to fight long, and only partially successful, battles with the Veterans Administration and legal system to obtain compensation for unusual diseases—notably the effects of the pesticide Agent Orange. Gulf War veterans now have to fight a second time because some of their ailments, such as Gulf War Syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, were at first unknown and then not classified as service connected. In the post-Vietnam era, there is no draft. Those who enlist are either exceptionally dedicated to their country or, as is more often the case, National Guard personnel or recruits seeking either income or career training in economic hard times. Initial commitment among the general population to the short-lived Gulf War and then the Afghan War was considerable because of Saddam Hussein’s takeover of Kuwait in 1989 and the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001, as recruiting patterns reflected. But then dissatisfaction with the Iraq War grew for two main reasons: it continued long after President George W. Bush declared it over and then the major justification, that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, proved false. National Guard personnel who had not expected to serve overseas and recruits enticed by prospects of a better job and benefits came to comprise a disproportionate element of the military in the field. But the fact that there is no draft has been a boon for veterans. The government needs new enticements to recruit soldiers. Female personnel perform many noncombat tasks (very loosely defined) and convicted felons may now serve, although homosexuals are still excluded as of 2009. Thus, the increased benefits of the GI Bill of 2008 will undoubtedly attract those who could not otherwise receive college educations or technical skills the military can provide. Sensing the needs of their present and potentially future membership, the major veterans’ organizations have stressed supporting the troops—rather than administration policy—in Iraq and are actively working to see that benefits approximate needs.

Introduction Despite official pronouncements that we owe our very national existence and freedom to the sacrifices of our military, the question of how that gratitude ought to be expressed has always, like every major question in American life, been a matter of Politics: Who Gets What, When and How to use the title of Harold Lasswell’s 1936 classic work. After they leave the field of battle, while they retain some of their wartime prestige, veterans, like Cincinnatus himself, are again civilians. In the United States, this means that they appear principally as members of veterans’ associations, trying to convince the wider public that they merit both respect and a certain proportion of scarce government and private resources. Thus, to a large extent, veterans and their organizations, both from self-interest but also sincere devotion to their community, spend a great deal of time doing good deeds: helping their comrades obtain benefits to which they are legally entitled, raising money for hospitals, working with youth. The local ‘‘post’’ is the principal form by which the American knows his or her veteran, through the Legion or the VFW in most cases, as a friend and a neighbor. While this encyclopedia focuses on the overall experiences of veterans in American history, it is good to conclude this introduction by noting that despite the wonderful oral history projects, such as those at the Library of Congress and the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, that are collecting the stories of thousands of veterans, most of their stories will never get into the books. They will live in the memories of the people, and through the memorials, monuments, and museums, of the communities they have served since the Spirit of 76 first made its appearance.

|

xli

This page intentionally left blank

Timeline

1775 1780 1783

1789 1806 1813 1818 1825 1832 1833 1834 1843 1846 1848

American Revolution begins. Congress promises Continental Army officers half-pay for life in an effort to persuade them to remain in service. Newburgh Conspiracy—Continental Army officers threaten a coup if Congress does not pay them. Society of the Cincinnati formed. Arouses opposition as potential hereditary military aristocracy. Washington bids farewell to his remaining troops and officers; most of them have informally left or been dismissed. Black and other loyalist veterans evacuated from New York City. Many move to Canada. First federal pensions for disabled veterans in the Continental Army voted by Congress. Federal pensions approved for disabled Revolutionary War veterans who served in state and local militias. Existing pension laws for Revolutionary War veterans applied to War of 1812 veterans. Federal pensions made available to all Revolutionary War veterans who can prove poverty. Bunker Hill Monument dedicated on fiftieth anniversary of the battle. All surviving Revolutionary War veterans become eligible for pensions if they served six months. Federal Bureau of Pensions established. Naval Asylum to care for navy veterans opens in Philadelphia. Bunker Hill Monument dedicated; took 18 years to build. Disability pensions made available to Mexican War veterans. Cornerstone laid for Washington Monument. xliii

xliv

|

Timeline

1851 1854 1861 1862

1863 1864

1865

1866

1869

1870 1874 1879

1884 1885– 1889 1887 1888 1889 1890

United States Soldiers Home opens in Washington, DC. United Brethren of the War of 1812 formed to lobby for benefits. Civil War begins. General Pension Act passes Congress for disabled Union Civil War veterans and their dependents. Confederates who served in previous wars no longer eligible for pensions. First black soldiers enlisted to fight for the Union. Gettysburg National Cemetery founded and dedicated by Abraham Lincoln. Arlington National Cemetery established on the grounds of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s plantation. Practice of decorating the graves of war veterans begins in communities in the North and the South. Grand Review, two-day parade of 140,000 Union veterans in Washington, DC. Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States established. First law giving veterans preference in federal employment. First National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers established for Civil War veterans. Grand Army of the Republic formed of Union Civil War veterans. The Grand Army of the Republic recommends Decoration Day, later Memorial Day, generally be commemorated on May 30. Confederate veterans form the Ku Klux Klan and resist imposition of black rights by occupying Union troops. Ulysses S. Grant becomes the first of five Civil War veterans elected president of the United States. Southern Historical Society founded to perpetuate the idea the South fought for freedom and states rights, not slavery and economic wealth. General Jubal Early becomes the principal spokesman for this ‘‘Lost Cause’’ ideology. Any Union veteran who served 90 days now eligible for 160 acres of free Homestead land. National Association of Veterans of the Mexican War holds first convention. Arrears of Pension Act enables Union veterans to collect cumulative amount from the time of their disability during the war regardless of when they apply for pension. John Logan, former national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, is unsuccessful Republican candidate for vice president. Democrat Grover Cleveland vetoes more bills than any other president— mostly private pension bills for Union veterans passed by Republican congresses. All Mexican War veterans eligible for pensions. Washington Monument opened, 40 years after construction began. United Confederate Veterans founded. Sons of the American Revolution founded. General Pension Act makes any Union veteran with a disability, whether acquired during the war or not, and his dependents eligible for a pension.

Timeline

1894 1895 1896 1898

1899 1904

1912 1913 1914 1915

1917

1918 1919

1920 1921

1922

Naval Order of the United States founded. Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park created, the first one in the United States. Daughters of the American Revolution founded. Shiloh National Military Park created. Gettysburg National Cemetery incorporated into a national military park. Hebrew Union Veterans formed. Spanish-American War. Theodore Roosevelt wins fame for leading charge at San Juan Hill, elected governor of New York, then vice president of the United States, becoming president upon the assassination of William McKinley in 1901. Role of black veterans in saving Roosevelt’s charge generally ignored. Vicksburg National Military Park created. All Union veterans eligible for federal pensions. United Spanish War Veterans formed out of three existing veterans’ organizations. Confederate veterans reburied in Arlington National Cemetery; cornerstone of monument to them laid. Fiftieth anniversary reunion at Gettysburg of Union and Confederate veterans. Veterans of Foreign Wars organized. Film Birth of a Nation directed by D. W. Griffith glorifies Confederate veterans as Klansmen in the postwar South. Leads to a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. Coast Guard becomes part of the armed forces. United States enters World War I. War Risk Insurance Act provides for deductions from troops’ pay to cover pensions for the disabled, widows and orphans, and dependents. Vocational Rehabilitation Act passes Congress to provide retraining for disabled veterans. American Legion formed. First Armistice Day to honor World War I veterans. Black veterans lynched and attacked on return to the South. Veterans groups attack Socialists, Communists, and left-wing organizations during the ‘‘Red Scare.’’ American Legionnaires killed in Centralia, Washington, in confrontation with Industrial Workers of the World. Disabled American Veterans of the World War founded. Polish Legion of American Veterans established. Veterans Bureau formed. Massive thefts and incompetence under Director Charles Forbes appear almost immediately. First veterans’ hospitals established. Tomb of the Unknown Soldier dedicated in Arlington Cemetery. Jewish War Veterans of the United States formed.

|

xlv

xlvi

|

Timeline

1924

1928 1929 1930 1931

1932 1933

1935 1936 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942

1943 1944

1945 1946

Congress approves Adjusted Service Compensation—The Bonus—over President Coolidge’s veto—to be paid in 1945. Formation of Veterans of Foreign Wars National Home for war orphans. American War Mothers chartered by Congress. American Legion Junior Baseball begins. American Gold Star Mothers established. First pilgrimage of Gold Star Mothers to France and England. Veterans Bureau renamed Veterans Administration. Second pilgrimage of Gold Star Mothers to France and England. ‘‘Star Spangled Banner’’ becomes national anthem thanks to lobbying by veterans groups. To alleviate hardships of Great Depression, veterans allowed to borrow up to half of the Bonus due them in 1945. Texas Congressman Wright Patman introduces bill to immediately pay the rest of the Bonus. Bonus Expeditionary Force formed in Oregon in June, arrives in Washington, driven out by army led by Douglas MacArthur. Economy Act of 1933 slashes veterans benefits by nearly $500,000,000. New Deal programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps provide employment or relief for veterans. Catholic War Veterans founded. Immediate payment of Bonus passes Congress over President Roosevelt’s veto. Final, seventy-fifth anniversary reunion of Gettysburg survivors. Tallest monument in the world (570 feet) completed to honor victors of the Battle of San Jacinto that established Texas independence. First peacetime draft in United States history. Benjamin O. Davis Sr. appointed first black general in U.S. history. United States enters World War II. Marines and Coast Guard accept black recruits for the first time. Captain George H. Maines organizes the Blue Star Mothers in Flint, Michigan. President Roosevelt proposes comprehensive program of postwar benefits for veterans. Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, popularly known as the G.I. Bill, provides college tuition and living support, up to a year’s unemployment pay, and generous disability benefits. American Veterans Committee founded. AMVETS founded. Association of Brazilian Ex-Combatants formed, veterans’ organization of Brazilians who fought in World War II as part of the 5th U.S. Army. Filipino veterans who fought for the United States no longer eligible for U.S. citizenship and veterans’ benefits. Women’s Army Corps Veterans founded.

Timeline

1948 1949 1950 1952 1954 1955 1958

1960 1963 1964 1966 1967

1969 1971 1972 1982 1984

1985 1986

Disabled AMVET leader Harold Russell wins two Academy Awards for The Best Years of Our Lives, a film about the problems of returning veterans. Paralyzed Veterans of America founded. Blinded Veterans of America founded. Armed forces integrated by order of President Truman. Westchester County, New York, veterans attack those attending concert by left-wing singer and speaker Paul Robeson. Korean War begins. Veterans Adjustment Assistance Act, or Korean War G.I. Bill, passes with less generous benefits than those available to World War II veterans. Armistice Day becomes Veterans Day to honor veterans of all wars. Pearl Harbor Survivors Association formed. Submarine Veterans of World War II formed. Two supposedly surviving Confederate veterans and about a thousand Confederate widows become eligible for federal pensions. Tombs of Unknown Soldiers of World War II and the Korean War dedicated at Arlington National Cemetery. Non-Commissioned Officers Association formed. National Association of Brazilian Expeditionary Force veterans formed. Vietnam War begins officially with Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Veterans Readjustment Benefit Act, or Vietnam War G.I. Bill, passed. Anti-War American Servicemen’s Union founded. Memorial Day becomes the official name of the holiday previously known as Decoration Day. Vietnam Veterans Against the War founded. Future senator and presidential candidate John McCain captured by North Vietnam and will spend over five years as a prisoner of war. GIs United Against the War founded in Camp Jackson, South Carolina. Winter Soldier Investigation and protests by veterans in Washington, DC, against the Vietnam War. Draft ends and all-volunteer army instituted. First Rambo film, directed by and starring Sylvester Stallone, encourages belief Vietnam continues to hold American prisoners of war. Vietnam veterans win $180,000,000 lawsuit against companies that manufactured Agent Orange, a toxic chemical to which they were exposed. Tomb of Unknown Soldier of the Vietnam War dedicated at Arlington National Cemetery. Vietnam National Memorial dedicated in Washington, DC. Montgomery G.I. Bill provides up to $300 a month for educational expenses for post-World War II veterans in return for three years’ active duty. Coast Guard Combat Veterans Association formed. Association for Service Disabled Veterans founded.

|

xlvii

xlviii

|

Timeline

1988 1989

1990– 1991 1993 1995 1996

1998

2001 2003 2004 2008

Veterans Administration becomes cabinet-level Department of Veterans Affairs. Colin Powell, a black Vietnam veteran, becomes Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Film Glory depicts heroism of Civil War black Union soldiers. Gulf War Syndrome—ranging from dizziness and memory loss to nausea and birth defects in children, appears. ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy instituted by President Clinton prevents openly gay people from serving in the military. National Korean War Memorial completed in Washington, DC. American Veterans for Equal Rights founded to overturn ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy and defend the rights of gay service personnel. First of four (so far) national summits on Women Veterans’ Issues sponsored every four years by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Body of Unknown Soldier from Vietnam identified and reburied. Tomb remains empty. National African-American Civil War Memorial completed in Washington, DC. Afghan War begins in October in response to attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11. Iraq War begins March 20. National World War II Memorial completed in Washington, DC. New ‘‘G.I.’’ bill passes Congress, funding full college tuition for up to three years for service personnel in Iraq and Afghan Wars and other benefits comparable to the 1944 G.I. bill for World War II veterans. Study by Department of Veterans Affairs estimates about a fourth of all service personnel who served in the Gulf War of 1990–1991 suffer from Gulf War Syndrome.

A entered Afghanistan to root out resistant Taliban and al Qaeda elements. American military personnel were primarily deployed in the north of the country to assist the Kabul government, while Canadian and European NATO forces patrolled the more troublesome southern provinces. American casualties have spiked in recent years as U.S. ground troops have increasingly engaged enemy forces in combat in southern Afghanistan. In May 2009, President Barack Obama announced 17,000 additional U.S. servicemen would be joining over 28,000 already in the country, out of a total international force of 56,000. Americans were present in Afghanistan before the war began, but they were members of the CIA who entered the country in the 1980s to assist rebel groups in their fight against the Soviet Union, which had invaded the country in 1979. After the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet-backed Afghan communist regime in 1992, American interest and funding dried up. Afghanistan

ADJUSTED COMPENSATION See Bonus March

AFGHAN WAR VETERANS The War in Afghanistan On October 7, 2001, less than a month after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the American military launched Operation Enduring Freedom to overthrow the Taliban regime and destroy terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan. In the first months of the conflict the U.S. military employed an effective air campaign. Ground troops were limited to a small number of special operation forces that aided the anti-Taliban Afghan militias in the north of the country. This stage of the war lasted until mid-December 2001 when the Taliban government was ousted from power. It was not until early 2002 that a large number of U.S. ground forces 1

2 |

Afghan War Veterans

descended into a state of civil war, from which the Taliban movement would emerge triumphant. Following the rapid initial victories in Afghanistan in 2001– 2002, the U.S. military and the American public again lost focus of events in Afghanistan as the nation’s attention turned toward the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq and subsequent counterinsurgency campaign in that country; this has led some observers to refer to the war in Afghanistan as a ‘‘forgotten war.’’ For the first several years of the war, the American presence in Afghanistan remained at 15,000–20,000 military personnel, but the number of U.S. service members in Afghanistan has increased in recent years. By June 2009, over 28,000 American military personnel were stationed in the country. U.S. military units that have been deployed to Afghanistan include brigades from the 10th Mountain Division, 25th Infantry Division, 82nd Airborne Division, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, and 101st Airborne Division. The heavy active duty presence in Afghanistan has been supplemented by members of the National Guard and Reserve, who as of 2008 comprised 21 percent of service members deployed in Afghanistan (O’Bryant and Waterhouse 2008).

Medical and Psychological Issues of Afghan Veterans From the onset of the war the American military has been keen not to forget the lessons of previous wars, namely, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the American participation in the Vietnam and Persian Gulf Wars. In the Afghan theater, Soviet soldiers suffered

high numbers of casualties from health issues related to microbial infections and hygiene. Another threat to American soldiers entering Afghanistan was mental health disorders, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was recognized as a problem following the Vietnam and Persian Gulf conflicts. To counter microbial threats and prevent psychological disorders, the U.S. military instituted a strategic policy named ‘‘Force Health Protection,’’ which called for making sure military missions were accompanied by programs promoting and sustaining health and wellness throughout military service. Preventive medical technicians deployed with troops in the field and ensured high levels of camp sanitation by emphasizing preventive health measures such as hand washing, waste disposal, and issuing prophylactic medication. Despite these measures, more than half of the military personnel who have served in Afghanistan reported suffering diarrhea, nearly 70 percent experienced respiratory illness, and 35 percent reported noncombat injuries. Military personnel assigned to Afghanistan also were subjected to pre- and postdeployment health screening for both physical diseases and mental health disorders (Tanielian and Jaycox 2008). In spite of the preventive steps taken, Afghan War veterans have often been found to suffer from mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and depressive symptoms, as well as traumatic brain injuries. A contributing factor for mental health problems was the increased number and length of deployments, in particular, for National Guard and Reserve service members. National Guard personnel who believed they

Afghan War Veterans would only serve in the United States were not only sent to Afghanistan, but also were recalled more than once during their terms of enlistment. As enlistments in the military declined during the Iraq War, others had their tours of duty extended from 12 to 15 months in the ‘‘Stop Loss’’ program. Some of these casualties have been unavoidable, as improved body armor and ready access to emergency medical care has increased the survival rate of soldiers who suffer severe trauma to the brain. A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 11.3 percent of service members returning from Afghanistan reported mental health problems, compared with 19.1 percent for those returning from Iraq and 8.5 percent returning from other locations (Hoge et al. 2006). Afghan War veterans were also found to have utilized mental health services at lower rates than service members returning from Iraq and were consistently less likely to report symptoms of PTSD. The difference in rates of disorders between veterans in the two theaters of action reflects the greater exposure to combat for service members in Iraq than their counterparts in Afghanistan. In a 2004 study, 31 percent of Afghan War veterans reported to have been engaged in a firefight and 66 percent had been shot at, while more than 70 percent of Iraq War veterans had participated in a firefight and 93 percent of U.S. Army and 97 percent of Marine Corps Iraq War veterans had been fired upon. In addition, Afghan War veterans were found to have been less likely than their Iraq War counterparts to have handled dead bodies, known someone who was killed, or killed an enemy combatant (Hoge et al. 2004). Afghan War veterans were also found to resign from military

| 3

service at lower rates, 13.7 percent, than Iraq War veterans, 17.3 percent (Hoge et al. 2006). One of the starkest differences between the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts has been the connection between improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). IEDs have been the primary weapon of choice for the Iraqi insurgency, as is reflected in a March 2006 study published by the Congressional Research Service. The study found that, of the 1,179 TBI evacuees, 96 percent had sustained injuries in Iraq and only 4 percent had been injured in Afghanistan (Tanielian and Jaycox 2008). An increased use of IEDs in Afghanistan in the years following the study will likely increase the number of TBI incidents among Afghan War vets. The problem of mental disorders for service members returning from the Afghan War is substantial. A 2008 RAND study estimated that of the 1.6 million veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars, 300,000 suffer from PTSD (Tanielian and Jaycox 2008). These findings were in part based upon a 2004 study that found 11.2 percent of Afghan War veterans met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or PTSD, compared with more than 15 percent of Iraq War veterans. Further, of those veterans who responded positive for mental disorders, only 23–40 percent had sought mental health care (Hoge et al. 2004). The lack of mental health treatment for returning veterans has risen to crisis proportions. A number of incidents involving Afghan War vets provides a tragic preview of the cost of not providing full mental health care to returning service members. In the summer of 2002, four soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg murdered their wives, including

4 |

Afghan War Veterans

two murder-suicides; three of the soldiers had been Special Operations soldiers who had served in Afghanistan. Four years later, on Christmas Day in December 2006, Sergeant James Dean, a Maryland Army Reservist who had served in Afghanistan from 2004–2005, was killed by a police sniper at his parents’ home after he had become intoxicated and fired a shotgun several times; since his return from Afghanistan Dean had received mental health care and was on medication, but despite his mental health disabilities he had recently received notice that he was to be deployed to Iraq. The 2008 RAND report hypothesized that based upon the experience of veterans from the wars in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, the need for mental health services for veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will increase over time.

Afghan Veterans and American Society As veterans of the country’s first war of the new millennium, Afghan War veterans reflect the changing social values of twenty-first-century America. Though barred from combat arms positions, nearly 15 percent of the U.S. military are women, and female military personnel in Afghanistan have played a prominent role, including exposure to combatrelated trauma. Women are often exposed to combat indirectly and a number of the nearly dozen female military personnel killed in Operation Enduring Freedom related missions were helicopter crew members (see Women Veterans, World War I to the Present). The cost of war on female service members is reflected in recent studies that have shown women suffer PTSD and major

depression at higher rates than their male counterparts (Tanielian and Jaycox). The Afghan War has also mirrored the increased religious diversity of the United States. In 2007 Roberta Stewart, widow of Nevada Army National Guard member Sergeant Patrick Stewart, who was killed in a helicopter crash in September 2005 in Deh Chopan, Afghanistan, successfully sued the Department of Veterans Affairs to permit the use of the Wiccan pentacle on her husband’s gravestone. The Wiccans, who revere nature and its cycles, had fought for a decade for the right for their symbol, a five-pointed star inside a circle, to be placed on the graves of fallen Wiccan military personnel. The most publicized incident involving Afghan War veterans has been the death of former-NFL player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 when he was inadvertently fired upon by his fellow Army Rangers. Tillman was a starting defenseman for the Arizona Cardinals in 2002 when he turned down a multimillion-dollar contract extension to enlist in the U.S. Army with his brother Kevin, a minor league baseball player with the Cleveland Indians’ organization. After Tillman’s death, the military initially reported that he had been fatally wounded in a firefight with enemy insurgents, even though top military officials knew that his death was most likely due to fratricide. The Tillman family spent years investigating the facts surrounding Pat Tillman’s death, including Congressional testimony by Kevin Tillman, who had been stationed in Afghanistan with his brother. Veterans of the war in Afghanistan have been active in organizing support for veterans’ issues. The group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) claims to be the nation’s first and largest

African American Veterans, American Revolution and War of 1812 | 5 group dedicated to the military personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and has lobbied Congress to pass veteran-related legislation. In recent election cycles veterans of the war in Afghanistan have shown increased participation in politics. In the 2006 elections Afghan veterans Tim Waltz, who had served in Afghanistan as a member of the a Minnesota National Guard artillery battalion, and Joseph Sestak, a retired U.S. Navy admiral who had commanded battle groups in Afghanistan and Iraq, ran for election as members of the Democratic Party and ousted sitting Republican members of Congress. Republican Duncan D. Hunter, a captain in the Marine Corps Reserves who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2007, was elected to replace his father as the Republican congressman representing California’s 52nd district in 2008 (see Politics, Veterans in). As the war in Afghanistan continues indefinitely, it is ensured that the need for greater focus on veteran issues by the American public and government will only increase. David P. Straub

Further Reading Hoge, Charles W., Carl A. Castro, Stephen C. Messer, Dennis McGurk, Dave I. Cotting, and Robert L. Koffman. ‘‘Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care.’’ The New England Journal of Medicine 351, no. 1 (July 1, 2004): 13–22. Hoge, Charles W., Jennifer L. Auchterlonie, and Charles S. Milliken. ‘‘Mental Health Problems, Use of Mental Health Services, and Attrition from Military Service after Returning from Deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association 95, no. 9 (2006): 1023–32.

Hyams, Kenneth C., James Riddle, David H. Trump, and Mark R. Wallace. ‘‘Protecting the Health of United States Military Forces in Afghanistan: Applying Lessons Learned since the Gulf War.’’ Clinical Infectious Diseases 34 (2002, Suppl 5): S208–14. O’Bryant, JoAnne, and Michael Waterhouse. ‘‘National Guard Personnel and Deployments: Fact Sheet CRS.’’ Report for Congress, January 17, 2008. www.fas.org /sgp/crs/natsec/RS22451.pdf Tanielian, Terri, and Lisa H. Jaycox, eds. Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2008.

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND WAR OF 1812 American Revolution African American soldiers participated in the American Revolution from the beginning. Peter Salem of Framingham, Massachusetts, was a freed slave who took part in the Battle of Concord on April 19, 1775, and served at Bunker Hill and Saratoga. He died in the Framingham poor house in 1816, two years before veterans received pensions. About three dozen free blacks fought as part of the New England troops at the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, notably Salem Poor, who had purchased his freedom in Andover six years earlier. Colonel William Prescott and 14 other officers petitioned the Massachusetts legislature to honor him for his ‘‘brave and gallant’’ behavior. He died in 1780. A postage stamp issued in 1975 commemorates him.

6 |

African American Veterans, American Revolution and War of 1812

Although George Washington tried to prevent blacks from serving in the Continental Army, the perpetual shortage of men changed these orders. Southern states permitted masters, if they were drafted, to send their slaves as substitutes. Two states, Virginia and South Carolina, offered slaves as a reward for men who enlisted. By 1778, at the Battle of Monmouth, there were about 750 blacks in the Continental Army, a number that, according to one observer, rose to about a fourth of the entire army of 6,000 men by 1781. The most noteworthy black to serve the Americans was James Armistead, who served as a double agent during the Virginia campaign of 1781, General Charles Cornwallis believing him to be on the British side. The Marquis de Lafayette, commander of the Virginia forces until Washington arrived with his full army, later had his picture painted with Armistead and wrote a certificate praising the ‘‘essential service’’ he performed collecting intelligence as deserving of every possible reward. Yet the state legislature of Virginia delayed two years in freeing him and compensated his master at the going rate. In 1819, the state of Virginia granted him a $40 annual pension. Five years later, when he was touring the United States, Lafayette met Armistead, who had taken the name James Lafayette, at his home in Richmond, Virginia. Far more blacks fought for the British in the War for Independence than for the revolutionaries. As Washington was trying to prohibit black recruits, the Earl of Dunmore, governor of Virginia, created an ‘‘Ethiopian Regiment’’ of about 800 men who were slaves escaping from rebel landowners who had been promised their freedom. Their uniforms were

emblazoned with the words ‘‘Liberty for Slaves’’ on their chests to encourage others to run away. The regiment disbanded in 1776 after a defeat at the city of Norfolk and the loss of over half its members from disease. When General Sir Henry Clinton occupied the cities of Savannah, Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina, in 1779 and 1780, he also offered freedom to the slaves of rebels who would join his ranks. The most important black loyalist leader was known as Colonel Tye. His name was Titus, and he was the slave of a New Jersey Quaker who ran away from his farm in Monmouth County and joined the Ethiopian Regiment in Virginia. He served at the Battle of Monmouth in 1778 and by the following year was leading a band that numbered up to 800 guerrillas under his new, unofficial title. In the winter of 1779, he was one of 24 black loyalists who joined with the Queen’s Rangers in the Black Brigade that raided New Jersey for fuel and food during the harshest winter in North American history. In 1780, he executed Joseph Murray, a patriot militia leader who had been executing local loyalists. His string of successful raids came to an end in September 1780, when he was shot in his wrist and died of a resulting infection while capturing patriot Captain Josiah Huddy. At the end of the war, British commanding General Sir Guy Carleton refused to evacuate New York City until all the blacks and escaped slaves who had fled to British lines or fought for the Mother Country were safely evacuated. The Treaty of Paris that ended the war declared that the slaves had to be returned, but the British refused, using the excuse that the United States in turn failed to compensate loyalists for destroyed and confiscated property as

African American Veterans, Civil War the treaty also required. Most black loyalists from New York, like their white counterparts, went to Nova Scotia, where they were given the worst land and denied the right to vote. In 1790 many of them, led by Thomas Peters who had lobbied for the purpose in Britain, founded the African colony of Sierra Leone, although Halifax, Nova Scotia, retains a black community of loyalist descendants to this day. Following the American Revolution, the U.S. Army only recruited white Americans.

blacks wanted to serve that a Second Battalion of 256 men was formed; black Major Joseph Savary led it into the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815. Commanding General Andrew Jackson specifically praised the two battalions and expressed the belief that a black man had killed commanding British General Edward Pakenham. After the war, the black volunteers received the same pay and bounty as whites. Black militia units were discontinued in Louisiana in 1834 as recruits failed to appear during peacetime.

War of 1812 The U.S. Navy, unlike the U.S. Army, was always integrated even though blacks were relegated to positions such as cooks and deck hands. It makes sense that a black sailor appears in the famous painting of the ‘‘Battle of Lake Erie’’ by William Henry Powell as about a fourth of all the men in Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry’s fleet were black. During the war, the black citizens of Philadelphia, under sail manufacturer James Forten, organized a militia unit to defend their city in case the British attacked. In Virginia and Maryland, between 3,000 and 5,000 blacks joined the British forces, under Admiral George C. Cockburn, that attacked Washington, DC, and Baltimore; about 300 served as marines to harass American garrisons. The marines were later evacuated to Britain. On the other hand, in Louisiana blacks fought for the United States. The Battalion of the Free Men of Color that formerly existed under the French and Spanish rule in New Orleans was revived in 1814 for defense against the British. A total of 353 blacks enlisted and included Major Vincent Populus, the first black officer in the U.S. military. So many

| 7

William Pencak See also Revolutionary War Veterans; War of 1812 Veterans

Further Reading Selig, Robert A. The Revolution’s Black Soldiers. http://americanrevolution.org/ blk.html. Van Thenen, Eric. ‘‘The War of 1812.’’ Historic Context for the African-American Military Experience. http:// answers.yahoo.com/question/index? qid=20070418171335AAhaCvK. Wilson, Joseph T., and Dudley Taylor Cornish. The Black Phalanx: African American Soldiers in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. New York: Da Capo Press, 1994 (1887).

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, CIVIL WAR About 178,000 black soldiers served in the Union army during the Civil War. Before 1862, those who sought to serve openly were turned away. However, some blacks definitely served as members of their local units. Nick Biddle, one of the ‘‘First Defenders’’ who arrived

8 |

African American Veterans, Civil War

at Washington from Pottsville, Pennsylvania, to secure the national capital immediately after the war broke out, was a black man. He was the first casualty of the war: he was hit by a rock and wounded as Confederate sympathizers jeered his column as they marched across Baltimore, Maryland, to change trains. Only as white volunteers became scarce were blacks welcomed to enlist. Benjamin Butler, military commander of Louisiana, organized the Louisiana Native Guard when the Union conquered New Orleans and much of that state in 1862. He employed black officers who served with distinction in the battles of Port Hudson and Milliken’s Bend in 1863, the first important engagements to use their services. But when Butler was replaced so were the black officers, some of whom complained ‘‘we did most certainly expect the privileges, and respect due to a soldier, who had offered his services and his life to his government. This we have not received, on the contrary we have met with scorn and contempt’’ (Shaffer 2004, 15). The 54th and 55th Massachusetts regiments were the first black regiments mustered in the North, and they accepted recruits from other northern states as well as escaped slaves. About a quarter of all blacks who enlisted were from the North; the rest were mostly former slaves from the South. As with all other black units during the war, they were segregated and commanded by white officers. About 19,000 blacks served in the U.S. Navy, which had always had black sailors. All in all, at the end of the war, 9 percent of about two million soldiers and sailors who were mustered out of the service were African Americans.

At first, the black soldiers were given noncombatant duty building camps and roads, repairing rail lines, and driving wagons as white officers feared they would not do well in combat. One black soldier wrote to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton that ‘‘we expected to be treated as men but we have been treated more like dogs’’ (Shaffer 2004, 15). Blacks were originally paid $10 per month regardless of rank—they served as corporals and sergeants, although 111 were commissioned officers by the end of the war. They had $3 per month deducted from their pay, whereas white privates earned $10 a month in addition to a $3 clothing allowance, and higher ranks earned more money. The Massachusetts regiments refused to accept any pay at all rather than an inferior wage, even when the state of Massachusetts offered to make up the difference. A few soldiers mutinied and were executed. By the end of the war, black soldiers had proven themselves, most spectacularly in the heroic but disastrous assault on Fort Wagner near Charleston, South Carolina, where two-thirds of the officers and half the men of the 54th Massachusetts lost their lives, and on which the film Glory is based. Large numbers of blacks were used in combat by General Ulysses Grant in the war’s final campaign against Richmond, and by General George Thomas in the final battles of Franklin and Nashville against John Bell Hood’s Army of Tennessee. Over a fifth of the black troops—36,000—died, 80 percent from disease, as opposed to 60 percent of the deaths of white soldiers, because of inferior camps, as well as the fact more were in poorer heath than their white comrades when they enlisted. However, despite poor treatment, only about 5 percent of black soldiers as

African American Veterans, Civil War opposed to 15 percent of whites deserted. Robert A. Pinn, an Ohio veteran, summed up the reason: ‘‘I was eager to become a soldier, in order to prove by feeble efforts the black man’s rights to untrammeled manhood’’ (Shaffer 2004, 14). The war also provided blacks with some of the skills needed for peace. Sixteen percent became noncommissioned officers, and thus became leaders. Although there was no general policy, northern abolitionists and white officers established schools to teach the mostly illiterate black soldiers to read and write. The corporals and sergeants were taught and then they in turn taught the privates. Their protests for equal pay and combat duty, along with the pride of marching and fighting alongside large numbers of other blacks, instilled pride and willingness to use their rights as citizens. Most blacks had enlisted in 1863 or later, and their three-year enlistments had not expired when the war ended. Thus, the Union regarded them as ideal occupation troops for the defeated South. Most blacks resented this: they wanted to return to their families, correctly fearing that Southern whites not policed by Union troops would retaliate against blacks. Those sent to Texas for garrison duty along the Mexican border mutinied as the United States was pressuring the French to leave that republic. Black troops in Jacksonville, Florida, mutinied and several were executed. The black troops who remained on garrison duty in the South proved targets for the governments reconstituted by exConfederates that President Andrew Johnson allowed to take power. Most notorious was the Memphis riot of May 1, 1866. About 150 black soldiers remained at nearby Fort Pickering: the

week before a black soldier had been beaten by whites, and when two others were arrested by white police for drunkenness, the veterans attacked the police. White citizens fought back, the army did not intervene for three days, and when the carnage had ended, 46 blacks, including 14 veterans, were dead. Much of the black neighborhood, including churches and schools, was destroyed. That July, a demonstration for the right to vote comprised mostly of black veterans of the Louisiana Native Guard was attacked in New Orleans: 38 people were killed and 146 wounded. By the fall of 1866, only 13,000 black soldiers remained in service, and few continued after the Reconstruction governments established by Congress were put in place. After the war, black veterans suffered more from poverty and unemployment than white. Over four times as many black as white veterans were jobless in the immediate postwar era; the Freedman’s Bureau had to feed and clothe thousands of homeless black veterans discharged in Washington, DC. While the ‘‘buffalo soldiers’’—so named because the Indians considered the blacks’ hair to resemble that of the buffalo—are famous and played an important part in conquering the West between 1865 and 1890, only between 2,000 and 3,000 African Americans fit this category. Largely because black Southerners did not obtain land at the end of the Civil War, most remained poor. In 1890 half of all black veterans were unskilled workers as opposed to just over 21 percent of Union and just under 10 percent of Confederate veterans; most of the rest were farmers, usually tenants or sharecroppers. Most tellingly, whereas over

| 9

10 |

African American Veterans, Civil War

half the white Union soldiers were still alive in 1890, only 30 percent of black soldiers survived. Average life expectancy for whites was about 50, for blacks about 40. Only 1 percent of black veterans ever stayed in the Soldiers Homes (see Veterans’ Homes) for Disabled Veterans; although the homes and recreational facilities were integrated, their quarters, mess tables, and even haircuts were segregated. Nevertheless, the 1890 census shows there was a significant degree of geographic and economic mobility for black veterans. Although most remained in their region of birth, there was a pronounced movement from the South to the North, and from the country to cities—in short, to places where opportunity and freedom would be greatest. A combination of army pay, pensions, and skills was the path to upward mobility: 13 percent held high-status occupations as opposed to 7 percent for other African Americans. Realizing the power of the church in the black community, highstatus veterans tended to become clergymen: 844 occupied pulpits as opposed to 93 for the second highest high-status category, teachers. A smaller percentage of black (75) than white (93) Union veterans received government pensions as well. This was even more true of widows (60 percent versus 84 percent) because many blacks did not legitimate their unions with official marriage ceremonies. Until 1890, veterans had to prove disability, and this required assembling witnesses and paperwork, notarizing documents, and traveling to pension offices. With average incomes of about $250 a year, many African Americans could not assemble the funds even to hire pension agents to take their cases. Others who did receive pensions often

were obliged to take out loans at high rates based on receiving future checks. For most black veterans, the principal social reinforcement their services received was from the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR). Founded by Republican Union veterans (see Civil War Veterans), notably Illinois’John Logan who supported black equality, posts in small towns generally admitted black members, although some did not. In larger communities where significant numbers of blacks had enlisted, they usually had their own posts. At its 1887 encampment, the GAR turned down requests from Louisiana and Mississippi to have separate black and white organizations in those states. Subsequently, two black veterans served as commanders of those states’ united departments as most of the Union veterans from those states were black. Even white Southern Union veterans opposed the segregation proposal. The GAR’s general philosophy was ‘‘a man who is good enough to stand between the flag and those who would destroy it when the fate of the nation was trembling in the balance is good enough to be a comrade in the Grand Army of the Republic’’ (Shaffer 2004, 149). Notable black veterans were elected commanders of predominantly white posts; black and white posts alternatively led city parades or memorial services. The GAR also insisted that the war was about slavery and equal rights for black Americans, which they in fact deserved as they were not inferior as the ‘‘Lost Cause’’ advocates proclaimed. This occurred as more and more Americans embraced the southern ‘‘Lost Cause’’ argument that the South had fought for freedom and states’ rights rather than slavery (see Jubal Early).

African American Veterans, Civil War

| 11

Black Union veterans and their families were welcomed into the Grand Army of the Republic. [Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-132913]

Careers of African American Veterans Some African Americans used their war service to achieve distinguished careers. Most notable was Lewis Latimer, born in 1848, who served on the USS Massasoit in the Union Navy. He returned to his home city of Boston, where he learned mechanical drawing and later worked for Thomas A. Edison as one of his foremost experts on electric technology. He was the only black member of the Edison Pioneers, the organization of Edison’s employees. Other wellregarded blacks received patronage posts in the Republican Party. Sergeant William H. Carney of the 54th Massachusetts was one of 16 blacks to win the Congressional Medal of Honor during

the war. He seized the regimental colors when the flag bearer was wounded at Fort Wagner and urged his men forward. He played a prominent role in the Grand Army of the Republic and was only the second African American in Massachusetts history—the first was Frederick Douglass—for whom Massachusetts flags were lowered to half-mast when he died in 1908. Robert Smalls, who served as congressman from South Carolina for ten years in the 1870s and 1880s, was perhaps the most famous of all the black veteran politicians. He became known for leading the slaves who seized and captured the Confederate steamer Planter, on which they worked, in Charleston Harbor; he later served as a Union lieutenant. Investing his prize money from the ship in a steamer and

12 |

African American Veterans, Civil War

real estate venture in the Sea Islands, he purchased the home of his former master as well. He toured the North and lectured for additional funds which he then invested in local schools. Except when Democrat Grover Cleveland was president, he held the post of Customs Collector of Beaufort, South Carolina, from 1887 until his death in 1913. Black veterans became involved in politics, primarily during Reconstruction when governments consisting of blacks and Southern Unionists were protected by Union troops. Six of the sixteen black members of the House of Representatives at this time were Union veterans. Thirty-seven veterans filled federal patronage positions in the South out of over 120 African Americans who held them: James Milton Turner was appointed minister to the African Republic of Liberia. One acting governor (P. B. S. Pinchback) and three lieutenant governors of Louisiana were veterans of the Native Guard. Pinchback and former Lieutenant Governor Caesar Antoine were the principal sponsors of Homer C. Plessy’s lawsuit in 1896 that unsuccessfully challenged the segregation of railroad cars and led to the Supreme Court’s famous ‘‘separate but equal’’ decision. Black veterans were among the most active African Americans in the struggle for equal rights in the years after the war. Octavius Catto, who raised 11 companies of black soldiers in Pennsylvania and rose to the rank of major although he did not see combat, was killed in 1871 when he was shot by a supporter of the Democratic Party for organizing black voters in Philadelphia. Like the southern and several northern states, Pennsylvania refused to grant blacks the right to vote until compelled to in 1870 by the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Black veterans fought

against anti-miscegenation laws in Rhode Island (successfully) and Ohio (unsuccessfully). In 1909, black veteran John B. Anderson’s lawsuit persuaded federal courts to invalidate Maryland’s law disfranchising men whose ancestors were not eligible to vote before 1868 (that is, non-whites) unless they had the substantial sum of $500 in property. Some black veterans used their education to instruct their countrymen. John H. Murphy founded the Baltimore AfroAmerican, which at the time of his death in 1922 had the highest circulation of any black newspaper on the East Coast, about 14,000. He favored Booker T. Washington’s philosophy that blacks needed to better themselves economically in trades and not fight too aggressively for political rights. Alexander Augusta and Charles B. Purvis were black medical professors at Howard University and founded the National Medical Society of the District of Columbia when white doctors would not admit them into the American Medical Association. Allen Allensworth and Henry Plummer went west with the black regiments, the 24th U.S. Infantry and 10th U.S. Cavalry, respectively, as chaplains. They used their posts to educate their troops, managing their libraries, gardens, bakeries, and treasuries, and defending them when they were court-martialed. Allensworth worked well with white officers, but Plummer was dishonorably discharged on trumped-up charges of drunkenness for his efforts to encourage emigration to Africa. James Fleetwood, a medal of honor winner, was commander of the District of Columbia’s National Guard’s Sixth (Colored) Battalion after the war and turned down a lieutenant’s commission in the Spanish-American War as he thought he was entitled to a colonel’s.

African American Veterans, Civil War He founded the Colored High School Cadet Corps in Washington. Other veterans saw migration as their solution to prejudice. Entitled to 160-acre homesteads, black veterans were among the leaders of the ‘‘Exoduster’’ movement of Southern blacks to Kansas in 1879. Alfred Fairfax of Louisiana was the first black member of the Kansas legislature. Henry McNeal Turner, chaplain of the First United States Colored Infantry, served in the Georgia state legislature and as postmaster of Macon before deciding blacks could not live peaceably with dignity in the United States. A bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, he never obtained many followers for his

| 13

back-to-Africa movement because of lack of funds and reports of high death rates among those who went. For many years, the most notable monument to black Civil War veterans was the frieze outside the state house in Boston, Massachusetts. Executed by Augustus Saint-Gaudens and completed in 1897, it shows black soldiers led into battle by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. In 1998, the African American Civil War Memorial was dedicated in Washington, DC, at Vermont Avenue and U Street in the primarily African American Shaw community. Here several 11-foot-tall statues of African Americans entitled ‘‘The Spirit of Freedom’’ stand alone and do

A hand from the crowd reaches out to touch the African American Civil War Memorial in Washington at its 1998 unveiling. The memorial carries the names of over 208,000 African American Civil War veterans. [AP Photo/William Philpott]

14 |

African American Veterans, Korean War

not share their glory with white officers. The names of over 208,000 black soldiers and sailors who served in the war are also etched into the memorial. William Pencak

Further Reading Blatt, Martin, Thomas J. Brown, and Donald Yacavone, eds. Hope and Glory: Essays on the Legacy of the Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts Regiment. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001. Brundage, W. Fitzhugh. ‘‘Race, Memory, and Masculinity: Black Veterans Recall the Civil War.’’ In The War Was You and Me: Civilians in the American Civil War, edited by Joan Cashin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002). Gannon, Barbara J. The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic (forthcoming). Glatthaar, Joseph. Forged in Battle: The Civil War Alliance of Black Soldiers and White Officers. New York: Free Press, 1990. Shaffer, Donald R. After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2004.

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, KOREAN WAR On July 26, 1948, with Executive Order 9981, President Harry Truman mandated ‘‘equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.’’ This did not, however, instantly integrate the armed forces. During the Korean war, 600,000 black troops served, about half of whom were integrated into previously all-white units. Although figures were not kept by race in Korea or subsequent wars, it is

estimated about 5,000 blacks died in the war. A presidential committee, chaired by Charles Fahy, concluded that segregated units were inefficient and that complete integration would be militarily valuable. Johns Hopkins University also released a study, ‘‘Project Clear,’’ that concluded integrated units and an elimination of quotas limiting the number of blacks would be in the best interests of the service. By 1954, the last all-black army units had been disbanded and the quota system abolished. Resistance to integration in the armed forces continued during the Korean War, however. The 24th Infantry, an all-black regiment mobilized early in the war, was criticized by its commander Major General William Kean for panicking under fire and failing to hold its positions. Future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall investigated the court-martials of 32 of its soldiers for cowardice and found their sentences excessive. Half were sentenced to death and the remainder were sentenced to 10–50 years in prison. Marshall discovered some of the proceedings had lasted less than an hour and that some of the soldiers who were convicted were at the time in the hospital or assigned to mess duty. Over the years, the controversy over the performance of the 24th Infantry continued, with black veterans demanding a thorough investigation. This continued until 1987 when the Secretary of the Army had the Center for Military History compile a report. Based on over 400 oral history interviews and examination of the records, the report concluded that incompetent white officers blamed black soldiers for the white officers’ own failure to lead properly. Black officers had not been given important positions in the regiment, and white officers who had done badly elsewhere had been

African American Veterans, Spanish-American War transferred there. The regiment’s own commanders demoralized it with unwarranted negative statements. The 24th was placed in a difficult position and did as well as white regiments in the vicinity. Four companies of the 24th especially distinguished themselves at the Battle of Yech’on, the first major victory in the war. Captain Charles Bussey, commander of an engineering company, received a Silver Star for preventing a flanking operation by a North Korean battalion from engulfing the line. Under its final commander, Colonel Thomas Gillis, the regiment conducted a heroic bayonet and grenade assault that was buried in the records. Black pilots also performed well. Captain Daniel ‘‘Chappie’’ James Jr. flew an F-86 Sabre jet on 101 missions in Korea, many of them on unarmed reconnaissance flights behind enemy lines. He earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and became the first African American to command a fighter squadron. Second Lieutenant Frank E. Peterson Jr. was the first African American to fly for the marines. He flew 64 combat missions and won the Distinguished Flying Cross as well. Ensign Jesse L. Brown was the navy’s first black fighter pilot to die in combat during the battle at the Chosin Reservoir in December 1950. He was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and an ocean escort ship was named after him. William Pencak See also Korean War Veterans

Further Reading ‘‘The Beginnings of a New Era for AfricanAmericans in the Armed Forces.’’ Department of Defense, Korean War.

| 15

http://korea50.army.mil/history/ factsheets/afroamer.shtml. ‘‘Black Soldier, White Army: The 24th Infantry Regiment in Korea Executive Summary.’’ www.koreanwar.com/ BlackSoldierWhiteArmy.htm.

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, SPANISHAMERICAN WAR Four regiments of black soldiers—the 24th and 25th Infantry and the 9th and 10th Cavalry—were serving in the regular army in 1898 and sent to Cuba during the Spanish-American War. Ten new regiments of black volunteers were also raised. Although the army did not want to commission black officers, it could enlist black volunteer troops in no other way. Benjamin O. Davis Sr., who in World War II became the first black general in the United States, was the most notable of those officers. Neither Davis nor his commander in the 8th Volunteer Infantry had had military training, so they relied on two other blacks: First Sergeant Calvin Tibbs, who had 5 years of experience, and Second Lieutenant Andrew J. Smith, who had 28. While cheered in the North, the black soldiers were shunned or harassed when they reached the South: 27 blacks and 4 whites were seriously injured in a race riot in Florida. At San Juan Hill, the Tenth Cavalry came to the rescue of Theodore Roosevelt’s famous Rough Riders, the ‘‘First Volunteer Cavalry,’’ which might have been destroyed had it not received the Tenth Cavalry’s help. During this engagement, 21 black soldiers received citations for gallantry, 13 the Certificate of Merit, 8 the Silver Star, and 1 the Congressional Medal of Honor.

16 |

African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War

Yet Roosevelt, the military, and the press predominantly credited the black regiment’s white officers rather than the troops themselves for fine performance. This period marked the height of lynching, segregation, and race prejudice in the United States: the army accepted the stereotypes that blacks, despite their courage, were intellectually unfit to be officers. Black soldiers suffered from humiliation: white officers would berate their black counterparts in front of the men. Hotels in Cuba refused to serve them. In camps in the United States, black soldiers were assaulted and two were killed. Faced with police harassment, a crowd of black soldiers attacked a police station in El Paso, Texas, and killed a policeman. The leader, Sergeant John Kipper of Company A 25th Infantry was sentenced to life in prison. After Cuba, the four regular black regiments were sent to the Philippines, where they helped suppress the Philippine independence movement. They became increasingly unhappy at fighting other people of color while blacks were lynched repeatedly and had no political rights in the South. The Philippine independence forces printed propaganda to encourage them to desert; 6 did, along with 9 white soldiers. One black soldier, David Fagen, became a captain in the insurrection. His success caused the Americans to place a $600 price on his head, which a Filipino defector claimed when he literally returned with Fagen’s head. Other black soldiers did not openly endorse this conduct, although they sympathized with it. Commissary Sergeant Middleton W. Saddler of the 25th Infantry wrote, ‘‘We are now arrayed to meet a common foe, men of our own hue and color. Whether it is right to reduce these people to submission is not

a question for soldiers to decide. Our oaths of allegiance know neither race, color, nor nation’’ (Soldiers in the Sun). William Pencak See also Spanish-American War Veterans; Philippine War Veterans

Further Reading Johnson, Edward A. History of Negro Soldiers in the Spanish-American War, and Other Items of Interest. Raleigh, NC: Capital Printing Co., 1899. Powell, Anthony L. ‘‘Black Participation in the Spanish-American War.’’ www.spanamwar.com/ AfroAmericans.htm. Sexton, William Thaddeus. Soldiers in the Sun. New York: Blumefeld, 2008. Steward, T. G. The Colored Regulars in the United States Army. Philadelphia: African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1904.

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, VIETNAM WAR TO IRAQ WAR Black servicemen comprised approximately 10 percent of those who served in Vietnam. However, they constituted 31 percent of the combat personnel in 1965, 20 percent in 1968, and overall suffered 7,241 deaths, or 12.6 percent of those killed in action, rates roughly 30 percent higher than all U.S. forces. Because blacks tended to be less educated than whites, they scored less well on the Armed Forces Qualification Test given to all inductees, which relegated most of the black troops to the combat infantry. Twenty blacks won the Congressional Medal of Honor out of 237 awarded.

African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War Considerable prejudice existed against blacks both before and after induction. Only 278 blacks served on the nation’s draft boards out of 17,123 members in 1967. Several southern states had no black members until they were forced to appoint them by General Lewis Hershey, the director of Selective Service. The government refused to consider members of the Nation of Islam as conscientious objectors although over 80 of its members were sent to prison during World War II for refusing to fight. World championship heavyweight boxer Muhammad Ali failed his preinduction intelligence test but later was drafted, stripped of his title, and sentenced to five years in prison for refusing to serve. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction after a four-year legal struggle, but about 100 black Muslims were sentenced to prison. Black registrants were also less able to afford the college tuition (which guaranteed most men deferments), enlist in the National Guard, or afford the lawyers who could challenge draft board decisions. Militant black organizations such as the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panther Party considered the draft a form of genocide against the black male population and the war itself a colonial takeover of an unwilling people. The Black Antiwar Antidraft Union broke into a Chicago draft board office and destroyed the files. In addition to the draft, the army recruited more black soldiers through ‘‘punitive enlistment,’’ where men convicted of minor crimes were offered the choice of jail or military service, and Project 100,000, where that number of men who failed the military aptitude test would be trained to meet the minimum standards. Forty-one percent of the 246,000 men ultimately trained under

| 17

that program were black; discrimination also appeared in the fact that by 1967, two-thirds of eligible blacks and onethird of eligible whites were being drafted. In the army itself, prejudice continued. Defense Department studies of soldiers charged with minor offenses show that blacks usually were court-martialed about twice as frequently as whites despite smaller numbers. This included matters such as being late at roll call or wearing long hair. Similarly, of 1,441 servicemen court-martialed at a number of bases, over a third were black, including 57 percent of those at Camp Casey in Vietnam. Black officers serving as judges were rare. As a result, in 1971 African Americans constituted about a third of the army, a sixth of the navy, and over half the air force prison population, due to both more convictions and longer sentences. Blacks received 26 percent of dishonorable army discharges, 17 percent of the navy’s, and 29 percent of the air force’s. Blacks were five times more likely to receive a dishonorable discharge than whites. Black noncommissioned and commissioned officers were passed over for promotions and awards, in part because they were concentrated in infantry and support services where fewer higher-ranking officers were needed. Despite inroads made by the civil rights movement, blacks in the service were frequently refused service and housing at all white facilities and neighborhoods while in the South and overseas. In response to discrimination, both within and without the military, black soldiers began to assert their racial and cultural identity. African American bars sprang up in Saigon and near other military bases. Blacks began to display black power flags to counter the Confederate flags frequently flown by white soldiers

18 |

African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War

and wear both their hair and insignias indicating a black identity. The black power clenched fist salute was frequently substituted for the regular army salute. Blacks greeted each other with ‘‘dapping,’’ a variety of handshakes and gestures including placing clenched fists over their heads. Racial violence also broke out. At Camp Lejeune, South Carolina, a riot broke out at a dance when a black female naval recruit was dancing with a white sailor. Of the 44 men arrested and charged, only charges against African Americans and Puerto Ricans were not dropped. Racial melees led to the closing of clubs at Qui Nohm in Vietnam and at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, and at recreational facilities at China Beach near Danang as white and black soldiers disputed whether country western or soul music should be played. Fights over whether whites or blacks could play music led to brawls at Goose Air Force Base in Labrador and Darmstadt, Germany. In August 1968, race riots occurred at two army stockades—Da Nang and Long Binh— in Vietnam. Black prisoners complained that white guards were especially brutal toward them. Between the 788 and 1,016 (the low and high estimates) officers killed (‘‘fragged’) by their own troops in Vietnam, nearly all were white. While it is impossible to discover the culprits, many of the victims had tried to stop the use of drugs such as marijuana that black troops especially favored. The failure of the military to provide black leadership for its black troops was especially apparent. In 1962, blacks comprised less than two percent of the army’s officer corps, a figure that largely remained unchanged in the sixties. As of 1962, there was no black general in

the army and only one African American commanded a ship in the navy as of 1970. In 1968, there were only 97 blacks out of 9,800 cadets at all the service academies. Those black officers who did rise to the top, however, considered the army less racist than civilian life. Daniel ‘‘Chappie’’ James Jr., the Korean War hero who became an air force general, generalized from his own success to claim that ‘‘it is strange not to be patriotic in a country that has afforded me as many opportunities as mine has.’’ Black General Frederic Davison praised the military for its ‘‘unbelievable progress against prejudice’’ (Westheider 1997, 127). James was later appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in 1972. In response to the discrimination and racial tension in the military, by 1972 the Department of Defense authorized race relations classes and the training of Equal Opportunity Officers for all four branches of service. Minor military infractions had to be published and defendants informed of their rights, which led to large reductions in military prison populations. Trained penologists replaced career officers as wardens. Yet, later studies showed these reforms to be more form than substance as bigotry at all levels of the ranks remained. Militant black service personnel began forming their own organizations in the late 1960s. Along with white and interracial military groups, collectively grouped as RITA—Resistance in the Army—there were at least 14 black soldiers’ and 6 veterans’ organizations that were consciously attempting to bring the war to an end and prevent the army from prosecuting it. The American Servicemen’s Union was probably the largest.

African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War It claimed over 10,000 members by 1970, published a newspaper, The Bond, and had chapters at over 160 bases throughout the world and on 50 naval vessels. It was organized by Private Andrew Stapp in December 1967. GIs United Against the War was founded at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, in January 1969. The Movement for a Democratic Military began at Camp Pendleton, California, that November, as black marines looked for inspiration and collaboration with the Black Panther Party. All three numbered members in the thousands and were connected with one of the branches of the American Socialist and Communist parties. The Vietnam Veterans Against the War identified racism as the primary problem in the military and invited black GIs to join the anti-war movement. Radical entertainers Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland also performed at ‘‘Free the Army’’ events near military bases. Two new black Congressional representatives supported the black dissidents: Shirley Chisolm of New York defended blacks accused of crimes and investigated a riot at Norfolk, Virginia, that the navy blamed on blacks. Ron Dellums of California, a former marine, urged blacks and whites to resist induction: ‘‘This country shackles black soldiers and sends them to Vietnam to die’’ (Westheider 1997, 154). Coffeehouses and newspapers were the chief instruments of black radical soldiers and veterans. Operated by the U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, there was usually at least one radical coffeehouse near every major base where films were shown and books and literature against the war were made available. At least 245 ‘‘underground’’ newspapers—which meant they had to be printed and distributed off base—were published between 1967

| 19

and 1972. In response, the services imprisoned and dismissed most of the radicals with dishonorable discharges. The Vietnam War did not do much to help black veterans advance in the civilian sector. There were programs to help: Project Transition was available to personnel with less than six months’ service remaining where they obtained counseling, education, job training, and job placement sponsored jointly by the Department of Defense and private industry. The National Urban League headed by Whitney Young Jr. established the Veterans Affairs Program in 1967, with offices in nine cities. Black veterans helped themselves, too: at the Community College of Baltimore they formed a veterans’ club to help with job training and placement with the support from the American Legion and the American Association of Junior Colleges. Yet, despite all these efforts, a study in 1973 found that nearly a third of black veterans aged 20–24 were unemployed as opposed to about 15 percent of white veterans the same age. The Baltimore club frequently placed men as caddies or janitors. Less than honorably discharged veterans found it difficult to find employment and impossible to get veterans benefits. In 1976, a Veterans Administration study of 44,000 state and federal prison inmates reported a quarter were veterans and half of those were black. The 1967 GI bill that applied to Vietnam veterans only provided $130 a month for single veterans and $160 for married ones for college tuition and living expenses, which at best could supplement a regular income. Psychological problems were also more pronounced among black veterans: studies report about 40 percent had signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, about double the number for whites.

20 |

African American Veterans, World War I

With the advent of an all-volunteer army in 1972, African Americans began to break down racism in the army simply by virtue of numbers and persistent reenlistment, as well as changing social attitudes. As whites did not enlist in sufficient numbers, blacks constituted about 16 percent of the armed forces in 1974 and peaked at about a third in 1979. Blacks in increasing numbers were deciding the army offered them their best opportunity to better themselves: four out of five blacks in the military in 1981 reenlisted as opposed to one out of five whites. Blacks constituted about a quarter of the armed forces during the Persian Gulf War of 1989 and until the early 2000s. Blacks also began to receive the promotions and ranks they deserved in the post-Vietnam era. By the early 1980s, they were in fact overrepresented with over one-third the senior noncommissioned officers (sergeants) because Vietnam-era blacks had disproportionately reenlisted. There were twelve black generals in the army by 1974, whereas there had been only one in 1962. A black Vietnam Veteran, Colin Powell, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1989 to 1993 and secretary of state from 2001 to 2004. The need for a job and a desire for training have been the main motives for black enlistments rather than patriotic fervor: between 1973 and 1985, about a third of black 19-year-old men (as opposed to about a sixth of whites) were unemployed. However, with the Iraq and Afghan War, the percentage of blacks in the armed forces has declined to about 15 percent as blacks overwhelmingly (83 percent) have opposed the Iraq War and declined to enlist despite the economic inducements. William Pencak

See also Vietnam War Veterans; Anti-War Veterans Associations

Further Reading Wallace, Terry. Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War by Black Veterans. New York: Random House, 1984. Westheider, James. Fighting on Two Fronts: African Americans and the Vietnam War. New York: New York University Press, 1997.

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, WORLD WAR I Blacks flocked to enlist in World War I to show their worthiness for citizenship. The quotas for the four black existing regiments (the 9th and 10th Cavalry and 24th and 25th Infantry) were quickly filled. Then blacks were subject to the draft like white Americans. In the South, where most blacks lived, deferments from white draft boards were far less likely for blacks than they were for whites. Southern postmen sometimes withheld draft notices from blacks, then had them arrested as draft dodgers to collect the $50 reward, which was deducted from the draftee’s subsequent pay. Blacks provided about 13 percent of those drafted, as opposed to 10.5 percent of the population. Intelligence tests were then in vogue, which required literacy to understand. Despite the fact that Northern blacks in many states scored on the average higher than Southern whites, blacks in general were stigmatized as inferior and unfit for combat. This actually reflected the fear, mostly in the South, that blacks who received military training would be less likely to accept white rule after the war. Overall,

African American Veterans, World War I only 42,000 blacks received the combat assignments they, for the most part, wanted, to show their worthiness for citizenship. Blacks could not serve in the marines, and only in supporting, menial positions in the navy and coast guard. Very few were trained for combat, and most were relegated to labor battalions. As facilities were segregated, black camps at home and in Europe were much inferior, in housing and sanitation, to white camps. However, the black community protested, and given the need to keep up morale, two combat units, the 92nd and 93rd Infantry Divisions, were created. In May 1917, too, the army began training black officers at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. However, their white commanders did not think highly of them, producing poor morale and performance. The school closed after it graduated its first class in October. All in all, about 1,500 black officers were trained at Fort Des Moines and other camps, mostly in Puerto Rico and Hawaii where civilian hostility was less. No black was allowed to command a white officer, and white enlisted men routinely failed to salute or obey them. Neither the 92nd nor 93rd could develop the cohesion of white regiments, as the army stipulated no more than a quarter of the soldiers at any base could be black. The 92nd and 93rd had different combat experiences. Commanded by the racist General Robert Bullard of the Second Army, the 92nd was at first thrown suddenly into the Meuse-Argonne offensive and failed to fill the gap between an American and French regiment. Assigned to patrol duty afterwards, it lost 462 men. Sent back to the front at Chameney on November 10, 1918, the day before the Armistice, it lost an additional 500 men. Bullard’s poor reports

| 21

were used until the Second World War by the army to ‘‘prove’’ the unsuitability of black soldiers for combat. The French, however, awarded the 375th Infantry and 350th Machine Gun Battalion of the 92nd Division citations for bravery. Three of the four infantry regiments of the 93rd Division were composed of National Guard units from New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia. Sent into battle under French command, it was armed, organized, and equipped by the French who had been using black African soldiers in combat for three years. The first black American forces to see combat, they were sent to the front in April 1918, west of the Argonne Forest and held their position until July, when they joined with the French in driving the Germans back during the AisneMarne counteroffensive. The 369th Infantry, the first regiment in combat, received high praise and the nickname the ‘‘Harlem Hellfighters.’’ During a German night raid during this offensive, Corporal Henry Johnson fought off a German party using only a knife and pistol, for which he received the French Croix de Guerre and promotion to sergeant. The 369th fought on the front continuously for 191 days, from April to November 1918, longer than any other regiment in the American Expeditionary Force; 171 of its soldiers received the Croix de Guerre. The other three regiments of the 93rd also excelled in combat. Men of the 370th earned 71 Croix de Guerre and 21 U.S. Distinguished Service Crosses, of the 371st 123 Croix de Guerre and 26 Distinguished Service Crosses. The 372nd suffered 600 casualties in less than two weeks on the front lines and earned a unit Croix de Guerre along with 183 citations.

22 |

African American Veterans, World War I

Major Hamilton Fish, a founder of the American Legion and future congressmen, commanded black troops, strongly championed them, and tried for years, in vain, to have a monument erected to honor them. Only one black American, Frederick Stowers of Anderson, South Carolina, earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, and it was not awarded until 1991: Stowers had been killed leading his unit in combat after the Germans had fired on it after treacherously waving a white flag to pretend to surrender. By the end of World War I, African Americans had served in cavalry, infantry, signal, medical, engineer, and artillery units. Others had been chaplains, surveyors, truck drivers, chemists, and intelligence officers. But their main service was in labor battalions, where they were set to work digging trenches, removing unexploded shells, getting rid of unusable equipment and barbed wire, and burying the dead. Over 160,000, the vast majority who made it to France, worked in this capacity as manual laborers. White officers tried to tell them that digging graves was a sacred or especially honorable duty, but this backbreaking labor did not fool them. At the war’s conclusion, black troops were not allowed to march in the Allied victory parade in Paris, although blacks who had served both the French and the British were present. Nor were they included in the ‘‘Pantheon de la Guerre,’’ the huge French mural that honored the different men who served in the war. Before they were sent home, blacks were barred from the most desirable recreation areas, mistreated by military police, had their pay withheld for ‘‘disciplinary reasons,’’ and the 369th was even failed to receive special Thanksgiving and Christmas rations.

What amounted to the unauthorized lynching of black soldiers for various forms of misconduct was authorized by military officials as the troops waited to be demobilized. Men were hung or shot by firing squads without proper military court-martials. Senator Tom Watson of Georgia identified 62 such cases and failed to obtain satisfaction from the advocate general or a Senate investigating committee. Black officers were investigated for possible radical tendencies by military intelligence. The regiments were also repeatedly pushed down the list of those to be sent home: one battalion actually had to disembark its ship when the captain refused to transport black soldiers. The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars left it up to each state to decide whether to admit black veterans. In the North, they could sometimes join either integrated or segregated posts: in Dutchess County, New York, they joined both and the black post was far more energetic than the white one. In the South, however, where the great majority of black veterans came from, the states mostly barred them. The states which did allow black posts refused to allow them to attend state or national conventions or vote for any officials outside their local posts. When the Legion organized a pilgrimage to France in 1927, only two black veterans came at their own expense because none of the steamship lines chosen would accommodate black passengers. In 1934 and 1940, the Legion’s national leadership refused to challenge southern cities that refused to let integrated Legion boys’ baseball teams play championship games in their states. New York City did justice to the 369th when it returned home. A splendid

African American Veterans, World War II parade on Lincoln’s Birthday, 1919, marched up Fifth Avenue. The entire regiment ate dinner at the city’s expense in the 71st Infantry Armory. A month later the 367th also enjoyed a homecoming parade. But in the South, where most of the troops came from, there were no parades. Some soldiers were stripped of their uniforms at railroad stations, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People reported that soldiers still in uniform were beaten and chased out of towns in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, and even Wyoming. Officially, 83 people were lynched in the United States in 1919, 77 of them black, and of these, at least 10 were veterans. Daniel Mack, in Sylvester, Georgia, was sentenced to jail for 30 days for telling a white man he did not intend to be mistreated as he had fought in the war; a mob broke into the jail and beat him to death while he was still in uniform. In Pine Bluff, Arkansas, a black soldier who refused to get off the sidewalk when ordered by a white woman was tied to a tree and shot 40 or 50 times. Race riots took place throughout America in 1919 as well: in Washington, DC, Chicago, Omaha, Charleston, New York City, Norfolk, Virginia, Knoxville, Tennessee, Longview, Texas, and Elaine, Arkansas. In Bisbee, Arizona, fights broke out between the 10th Cavalry and the white townfolk. White columnists and observers attributed the riots to the return of black veterans who did not know their place, along with radical agitators during the Red Scare, even though most of the deaths and violence occurred in black neighborhoods. As the New York World commented, ‘‘who is foolish enough to assume that with 239,000 colored men in uniform from the southern

| 23

states alone, as against 370,00 white men, the blacks whose manhood and patriotism were thus recognized and tested are forever to be flogged, lynched, burned at the stake or chased into concealment whenever Caucasian desperadoes are moved to engage in this infamous pastime’’ (Barbeau and Henri 1974, 184–85). William Pencak See also World War I Veterans

Further Reading Barbeau, Arthur E., and Florette Henri. The Unknown Soldiers: Black American Troops in World War I. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Bryan, Jami. ‘‘Fighting for Respect: AfricanAmerican Soldiers in WWI.’’ Military History Online. www.militaryhistory online.com/wwi/articles/fighting forrespect.aspx.

AFRICAN AMERICAN VETERANS, WORLD WAR II About 2.5 million blacks registered for the draft in World War II, of whom about a million served in uniform. Blacks comprised 16 percent of all enlisted personnel but only 10 percent of the population. Yet in June 1945 they accounted for less than 3 percent of those assigned to combat duty. Seventy-eight percent of blacks, versus 40 percent of whites, were assigned to service duties such as the quartermaster and transportation corps. As in World War I, white society feared the effect of veteran black soldiers on American society (see African American Veterans, World War I).

24 |

African American Veterans, World War II

As America was mobilizing for war in 1940, blacks were determined not to fight, as in World War I, for almost no economic or political gains. Nevertheless, President Roosevelt turned down black leaders who asked for desegregation of the armed forces, although the Selective Service or Draft Act of September 1940, forbade discrimination. Several hundred African Americans registered as conscientious objectors on the grounds that segregated armed forces violated the law, and they were sent to prison. Meanwhile, black physician Dr. Charles Richard Drew developed a system for storing plasma, which has since saved innumerable lives, and served as the director of the American Red Cross Blood Bank. He resigned after serving a year, however, in December 1941, because the Red Cross refused to accept black blood donors. Black pressure led to the appointment of Benjamin O. Davis Sr. as the first African American general in U.S. history the week before the 1940 presidential elections. He commanded the combined 9th and 10th cavalry as the Fourth Cavalry Brigade for the three years it continued to exist before all horse cavalry regiments were terminated. General Davis inspected black military units in 1941 and reported that blacks were being mistreated and humiliated by white officers, troops, and civilians. After investigating racial clashes at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Alexandria, Louisiana; Fort Dix, New Jersey; Selfridge Field (now an air force base), Michigan; and Camp Stewart, Georgia, he recommended black soldiers no longer be trained or mustered in the South and that their officers also be black. Davis, meanwhile, gave numerous speeches encouraging black civilians to

support the war at meetings of industrial workers and war bond rallies. Davis’s son, Captain Benjamin Davis Jr., was also the first black pilot commissioned as one of the famous Tuskegee Airmen. By the war’s end, he had become the unit’s commander. The first 994 black pilots trained for the U.S. military at Tuskegee, Alabama, until the program closed in June 1946. The 99th Fighter Group from Tuskegee served in the North African and Sicilian campaigns in 1942–1943, receiving a Distinguished Unit Citation for the latter campaign. Nevertheless, its commander at the time accused the 99th of both lacking intelligence and cowardly behavior. Later, an investigation by the House Armed Services Committee proved the unit had fought as effectively as any in the air force. During the Anzio offensive of 1944, the 99th shot down 13 of a total of 32 German aircraft, more than any of seven white fighter groups involved. It subsequently won a second Distinguished Unit Citation at the battle of Monte Cassino. In 1944, the 332nd Fighter Group from Tuskegee also went to Europe. Escorting bombing raids into central Europe, the group was known as the ‘‘Redtails’’ by the Allies and the ‘‘Black Birdmen’’ by the Germans. The 332nd was the most frequently requested group for air cover by bombers flying over Germany, although few knew its pilots were black. By the war’s end, the 332nd flew over 15,000 flights on 1,500 missions and shot down 109 German aircraft in addition to destroying numerous fuel dumps, trucks, and trains. The two groups of airmen were later combined and received a total of 20 Silver and Bronze Stars, 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 744 Air

African American Veterans, World War II Medals. One hundred fifty men, over 15 percent, of black pilots lost their lives. Black U.S. Navy messman Doris (Dorie) Miller was a hero of the Pearl Harbor attack. Although he had no combat training as blacks were only allowed in service positions in the navy at the time, he manned a gun and shot down six Japanese aircraft. Admiral Chester Nimitz awarded Miller the Navy Cross; he later died when his ship sank. The destroyer USS Miller was named after him in 1973. As more military personnel were required, blacks were admitted to more responsible positions both out of necessity and to answer black protests about segregation and inferior treatment. About 1,800 blacks served on draft boards. In January 1942 President Roosevelt ordered the marines to accept black servicemen for the first time, and the navy for the first time since the Civil War. Over 167,000 served in the navy and 19,000 in the marines. The Coast Guard also enlisted its first 5,000 African Americans. In 1942 the Army Nurse Corps chose Lieutenant Della Raney as the first black chief nurse at the Tuskegee base, one of 500 black army nurses during the war. African American medical school students, like their white counterparts, were drafted out of school before they completed their degrees and sent to the front. Four blacks were captains of Liberty ships in the merchant marine: Hugh Mulzac, the first black sailor to earn a shipmaster’s license in 1920, made 22 round-trip voyages and transported 18,000 troops to Europe. Four Liberty ships were named for deceased black sailors. The armed services remained resistant to employing black troops in combat despite pressure from the government. Only one black group, the 320th Negro

| 25

Anti-Aircraft Barrage Balloon Brigade, served in the Normandy invasion, and nearly half of almost a million black troops enlisted for the European theater remained stateside in 1944. In 1944, director Frank Capra filmed The Negro Soldier at the request of the War Department to convince Americans of the worthiness of black troops. Showing the loyalty and accomplishments of black soldiers, it has been credited with breaking down the psychological objections many whites had to integrated armed forces and workplaces. Black service and protest went together. Admitted to officer candidate’s school only after the African American world boxing champion Joe Louis took up his cause, Lieutenant Jackie Robinson of the 761st ‘‘Black Panther’’ Tank Battalion was court-martialed for refusing an order to sit at the rear of a bus in Fort Hood, Texas. The charges were later dropped as the order contradicted the antidiscrimination policy of the army on transport and recreational facilities. Robinson was the player who integrated major league baseball in 1947. Although Robinson never went overseas, the 761st Battalion landed in France in October 1944. Its members won 80 Silver and Bronze Stars in the last few months of the war. During the Battle of the Bulge, they split the Germans’ line in three places and prevented them from reinforcing troops besieging an American position Blacks were disproportionately assigned to making and transporting munitions and chemicals, tasks that were both dangerous yet without prestige. For instance, at the Huntsville, Alabama, arsenal, they comprised over a fifth of a total workforce of nearly 7,000 men by 1944. The worst home-front disaster of the war occurred when the E. A. Bryan

26 |

African American Veterans, World War II

and the Quinalt Victory, two munitions ships, exploded in Port Chicago, California. Two hundred two of the 320 men killed were blacks, and 390 were injured. Ordered to continue the dangerous work with no change in procedure or training, 258 blacks refused to do so: 50 were charged with mutiny and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. Although they were later given amnesty, their convictions stood and they were never eligible for veterans’ benefits. The army did, however, stop relegating munitions transport to black units only. In April 1945, 104 black officers of the U.S. Army Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airmen, were arrested for entering the officers’ club at Freeman Field, Indiana, although entitled to under War Department regulations. The local post commander court-martialed 3 of the men, while 101 were reprimanded. No black soldier was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor during the war. In 1997, recognizing that this represented discrimination, seven blacks received the award, all but one of whom were deceased. Among them was Staff Sergeant Ruben Rivers of the 761st, who won a Silver Star for refusing to be evacuated with his company when wounded in France, and was then killed covering a retreat with his tank crew. The only black serviceman alive to receive his Medal of Honor was Second Lieutenant Vernon J. Baker, who during the Italian campaign single-handedly destroyed two enemy posts, two more with the aid of his men, covered the evacuation of his company’s wounded by drawing enemy fire, and finally led an assault under heavy fire through an enemy minefield. In spite of itself, the armed forces were forced to integrate during the

‘‘Battle of the Bulge’’ in January 1945. Five thousand black soldiers, of whom 2,500 were chosen, volunteered to enter depleted white units to turn back this final German offensive in Europe. The soldiers, however, never received public credit because the army did not want to jeopardize the support of southern congressmen for a postwar draft. In March, a Japanese-American and a white infantry regiment were incorporated into the black 92nd Infantry to bring it up to strength. The 92nd played a critical role in the final Italian campaign. It lost almost 25 percent of its men: 330 killed in action, 2,215 wounded, and 616 missing in action. Its troops received over 12,000 decorations, including 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, 1 Distinguished Service Medal, 16 Legion of Merit awards, and 95 Silver Stars (see Japanese-American Veterans). At the war’s conclusion, Colonel Benjamin O. Davis Jr. became commander of the 477th Group at Godman Field, Kentucky—the first black to command either a military base or U.S. Army Air Force unit in the nation. However, his experience was not typical. President Truman commented, ‘‘My very stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten . . . . As President I know this is bad. I shall fight to end evils like this’’ (Gambone 2005, 120). Among other outrages, a black military policeman was shot by a white policeman in Harlem, New York City, and black veteran Isaac Woodward was arrested and blinded during a beating by police in Batesburg, South Carolina (see Blinded Veterans of America). The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People put considerable pressure on

African American Veterans, World War II the Truman administration to appoint more blacks to jobs in the Veterans Administration as well: for instance, whereas blacks were only 22 of 800 employees in hospitals in Maryland, they were 16 percent of those in Chicago. Because most blacks were support troops, they were not able to accumulate the points for time spent in combat or heroism that facilitated an early discharge. Those who drove trucks and buried the dead were needed in any case until most troops came home. The training black soldiers received as support troops that included engine mechanics, carpentry, communications, and other skills came in handy in the postwar era. Only 15 percent returned to their prewar occupations. Within a year of victory, over 10 percent of black veterans who lived in the South had left for the North and West. In a speech to black veterans in March 1945, Veterans Administration head Frank Hines explained that they had won their own four freedoms: freedom from discrimination before the law; freedom from unequal education; freedom from inequality in expenditures for health, hospitalization, and rehabilitation; and freedom from prejudice that led to unequal pay and opportunity. But these were not always put into practice. The VA did not, for instance, insist that black veterans receive integrated housing and followed local and state laws and practices regarding where it would underwrite mortgages. Veterans’ hospitals were not open to black veterans in 10 states except in emergency cases. Blacks were limited in the South to historically black colleges, of which there were fewer than a hundred and most did not give bachelor’s or advanced degrees. However, black college enrollment increased from 37,000 in 1941 to

| 27

73,000 in 1947, about half of whom were veterans taking advantage of the GI Bill (see Servicemen’s Readjustment Act). Black colleges had a 26 percent increase in enrollment between 1946 and 1947, over double the national average. As a result of this influx, the black colleges were overwhelmed. As their physical, faculty, and library resources were inadequate for the large number of students, blacks increasingly demanded access to white institutions. As the federal and state governments refused to improve service at veterans’ hospitals and integrate colleges, black veterans became politically active. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) grew from 50,000 to 450,000 members between 1940 and 1946. The South accounted for 79 percent of the new chapters organized between 1946 and 1950. Black veterans led voter registration drives in the 1946 elections: 100 veterans attempting to register to vote in Birmingham, Alabama, were rejected because they could not answer complicated questions about the U.S. Constitution. At least five black veterans protesting for their rights were killed in Birmingham during clashes with police that year. In Bennettsville, Georgia, black veterans patrolled the streets with weapons to oppose a revived Ku Klux Klan. Black veterans traveled to Washington, DC, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the seating of racist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo. Civil rights organizations frequently chose veterans as plaintiffs for desegregation lawsuits as judges and juries were more likely to be sympathetic to men and women who had fought for their country. The most thorough study of black veterans’ political activity in the postwar era

28 |

Agent Orange

is Jennifer Brooks’s work on Georgia. Only allowed to participate in 6 of the 246 job programs for veterans in the state, black veterans founded the Georgia Veterans League which had between 200 and 300 members in four chapters throughout the state. Their principal short-term goal was to make sure black GIs could talk to sympathetic black counselors about their rights under the GI Bill. For the long term, they espoused equal pay for jobs and equal services and treatment in public programs and facilities. In Savannah, black veterans organized the World War II Veterans Association and combined with the white Citizens Progressive League to oust political boss John Bouhan, and their votes made the difference. In Atlanta, 20,000 blacks registered to vote following a drive by the All Citizens Registration Committee headed by former GI David Watson. Following the defeat of progressive Helen Douglas Mankin for Congress in 1946—who had won a majority of the votes but lost the race because Georgia counted the number of counties voting for a candidate rather than the overall majority in congressional races—the Georgia Veterans for Majority Rule was organized to end this system that discriminated against urban and black voters. In response to the increased black political presence, the mayor of Atlanta began to hire black police officers and make improvements in schools and recreational facilities in black neighborhoods. All in all, over 135,000 blacks were registered in Georgia in 1946 and over 85,000 voted that year. Largely as a result of drives led by veterans, over a million blacks in the South were registered voters by 1954. White veterans, too, who had been impressed by the performance of black

troops during the war, also joined the movement for civil rights in the South. The American Veterans Committee (AVC), the most liberal veterans organization which emerged from the war, had about 20,000 Southern members. The Atlanta chapter won the AVC George Norris Award for Civil Rights in 1950– 1951 for its efforts to improve housing for black Atlantans, opposition to the Ku Klux Klan, and support for litigation to end school segregation. World War ll and its veterans thus provided the groundwork for an effective civil rights movement, the movement of blacks out of the South, and an increasingly educated black middle and upper class. William Pencak

Further Reading Brooks, Jennifer. Defining the Peace: Race, World War II Veterans, and the Remaking of the Southern Political Tradition. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Gambone, Michael. The Greatest Generation Comes Home. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Press, 2005. Morehouse, Maggi M. Fighting in the Jim Crow Army: Black Men and Women Remember World War II. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000. Putney, Martha S. When the Nation Was in Need: Blacks in the Women’s Army Corps during World War II. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1992. Wynn, Neil A. The Afro-American and the Second World War. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1993.

AGENT ORANGE During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military used a chemical mixture called

Agent Orange Agent Orange as an herbicide to defoliate vast areas of Vietnam’s jungles. The two specific chemicals used were 2,4-D dichlorophenoxy (C8H6Cl2O3) and 2,45T trichlorophenoxy (C8H5Cl3O3). They are directly harmful to humans and together they form dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin [TCDD]). Dioxin is an infamous carcinogenic agent in humans that once caused numerous health problems in Love Canal, New York, a community near Niagara Falls built on an old toxic waste dump, where in 1978 a very high level of cancer, nervous diseases, and birth defects were discovered. . The component herbicide chemicals in Agent Orange were manufactured by Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Diamond Shamrock. An estimated 20 million gallons of Agent Orange were used in Vietnam between 1961 and 1971. It had been developed independently in the 1940s in England and the United States as a chemical control of broad-leaf plants. Carpet weed, pig weeds, and many other common weeds that infest gardens or field crops were the target of the research that produced Agent Orange. When sprayed on plants it induces rapid growth and eventually defoliation. Used on wheat or corn fields it kills the broad-leaf weeds but does not harm the crops. Agent Orange had been successfully used as a weed control agent in Puerto Rico in the mid-1950s and was extensively used around military bases in both the United States and abroad between the late 1940s and the early 1970s before it was introduced into the biological warfare arsenal of the United States during the Vietnam War. The name Agent Orange was given to the two phenoxy herbicides in the mixture because of the color of the orange-

| 29

striped barrels that were used for its shipping. The barrels contained 55 U.S. gallons of a one-to-one mixture. In the herbicidal warfare conducted by the United States, other agents beside Agent Orange were used. These were also denoted by color. Collectively known as the ‘‘rainbow herbicides,’’ they were Agents Purple, Blue, Green, Pink, and White. Agents Blue and White were not carcinogenic because they did not release dioxin. However, Agents Purple, Pink, and Green did release dioxin and were therefore the cause of numerous health problems for veterans exposed to these chemicals. Spraying Agent Orange across the jungles of Vietnam as a defoliant was aimed at preventing the Viet Cong (and later the North Vietnamese Army) from hiding in the thick foliage of the jungle areas of North and South Vietnam as well as in Cambodia. Without the jungle foliage they could not camouflage their troop movements and bases. The negative side effects of Agent Orange and other defoliants were either not known at the time or were not handled seriously. When the U.S. government adopted Agent Orange for use in Vietnam, it was known by the manufacturers that dioxin in the form of TCDD was a by-product and that it would be present in any herbicide that contained TCDD. Internal memoranda of the chemical companies discussed the issue of dioxin, but this information was not used to protect American personnel. As a result, thousands of American troops were exposed to Agent Orange and its carcinogenic potential. The effects, however, did not stop with the suffering and death of those allied and enemy troops who eventually contracted cancer. It also affected families and

30 |

Agent Orange

society because exposure can cause genetic defects in children yet to be born. Exposure to high levels of dioxin has been shown in several epidemiological studies to indicate a greatly increased risk for developing a variety of cancers. Studies of TCDD by the National Toxicology Program have shown it to be a human carcinogen. Cancers associated with TCDD include soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, and chronic lymphocyte leukemia. Studies conducted by the National Institutes of Medicine have also found a link between dioxin and type II diabetes. Other cancers are also associated with exposure to dioxin. These include respiratory cancer, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, and a number of other diseases. Perhaps the gravest impact arising from exposure to dioxin is acute myelogenous leukemia which has been found in the children and grandchildren of Vietnam veterans as a result of genetic damage from exposure. By the end of American involvement in Vietnam (1973), many American veterans of the war were seeking recognition of the Agent Orange syndrome. Their illnesses were unusual and did not match previous patterns. Many began to suspect that they had been poisoned somehow. Their numbers are estimated to be at least 100,000 or more, out of the over three million Americans who served in Vietnam, although many have already died from cancers caused by exposure to Agent Orange. The symptoms presented by veterans with Agent Orange syndrome were wide ranging. Cancers were an obvious symptom, assuming that the cancer was really caused by Agent Orange. Other symptoms were more ulcers, digestive problems, strokes, cardiovascular problems,

blood clots, and other ailments that occurred with greater frequency than in the general population. The Veterans Administration has established to its own satisfaction that there are 11 conditions for which there is a positive association between the condition and Agent Orange. The conditions are Chloracne, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft-tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin’s disease, Porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), multiple myeloma, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers (cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea, and bronchus), type II diabetes, and chronic lyphocytic leukemia (CLL). There is also a large list of diseases and conditions that the VA does not recognize as associated with Agent Orange and therefore not as service-related health problems. Establishing a direct causal link with the variety of symptoms presented by the veterans, even statistically, was not sufficiently established to compel some in government offices to abandon opposition to recognition of Agent Orange Syndrome. The New Jersey Agent Orange Commission was created by the state government of New Jersey in 1980. It was the first such commission created by a state for the purpose of studying the effects of Agent Orange. The project was conducted in association with Rutgers University and was called ‘‘The Pointman Project.’’ The commission researchers developed techniques for detecting Agent Orange residues in the blood samples of veterans. Previously dioxin was found only in adipose tissue which is fat that is the loose connective tissue that stores energy and insulates the body. The Pointman Project conducted a comparison study of veterans who had served in Vietnam with veterans who had

Agent Orange not served there. The findings were reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1988. Other studies were conducted with groups of Vietnam veterans who, by their branch of service such as army, marines, and naval personnel, had served on gunboats in Vietnamese rivers. The Pointman Project was closed down by Governor Christine Todd Whitman in 1996. Other states that also authorized commissions to study the Agent Orange issue included Illinois, New York, and Connecticut. In the 1980s lawsuits were filed against the producers of Agent Orange. Diamond Shamrock had produced only 5 percent of the volume used while Dow Chemical and Monsanto had produced the bulk of the two defoliants. In 1984 a settlement of

| 31

$180 million was obtained for affected veterans. Each affected veteran received a lump-sum settlement of $1,200. The money was not distributed until 1996. Vietnam War veterans and their families who brought the original Agent Orange lawsuit stated 25 years ago that the government was just waiting for them to die to avoid payment. They alleged that most of those still alive would succumb to the effects of toxic exposure before the age of 65. The $1,200 settlement did not begin to cover the medical costs of the affected veterans nor those of their offspring. Many veterans in the United States sought recognition for Agent Orange Syndrome so that they could receive treatment as well as compensation. However, many were unable to receive

Members of the Korean Disabled Veterans’ Association for Agent Orange take part in a silent vigil in front of the White House, 2006. [AP Photo/Ron Edmonds]

32 |

Agent Orange

medical care through the Veterans Administration’s health care system. Nor were medical services provided to their affected children. Veterans’ associations, including those organized by Vietnam War veterans , have been active in lobbying Congress for action dealing with Agent Orange. In 1991 Congress passed the Agent Orange Act. The law directed the secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek review of the health issues associated with Agent Orange by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Science. It formed a committee to review the health effects in Vietnam veterans of exposure to herbicides. In response to the health concerns of Vietnam veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs developed a comprehensive program to diagnose and treat health problems caused by Agent Orange. It has also engaged in scientific research and in providing health care services. While over 100,000 Vietnam veterans have been identified as suffering from the effects of Agent Orange, others believe that they have been denied service-connected health care and disability compensation for these diseases by the Department of Veterans Affairs. As late as August 8, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling which stated existing data do not support a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure. As of 2008 the VA presumed that all military personnel who served in Vietnam were exposed to Agent Orange. In addition, federal law presumes that there are illnesses caused by such exposure. The VA now practices a ‘‘presumptive policy’’ that seeks to rapidly determine if the illness being suffered by a veteran is due to Agent Orange.

The Vietnamese government has estimated that almost five million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange. It has estimated that exposure has killed 400,000 and has genetically affected 500,000 children. Most are in the Truong Son (Long Mountains) and along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Studies of the effects of Agent Orange have been made by Vietnamese scientists confirming what has been determined in the United States. Several American veterans’ groups have been engaged in aiding Agent Orange victims in Vietnam. Andrew Jackson Waskey See also Benefits

Further Reading Allen, Robert. The Dioxin War: Truth and Lies about the Perfect Poison. London: Pluto Press, 2004. Dai, Le Cao. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2006. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007. Dai, Le Cao, Diane Niblack Fox, and Khuyen Nguyen. Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Hanoi, Vietnam: Vietnam Red Cross Society, 2000. Doyle, Jack. Trespass Against Us: Dow Chemical & the Toxic Century. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004. Griffiths, Philip Jones. Agent Orange Collateral Damage in Viet Nam. London: Trolley Press, 2004. Schuck, Peter. Agent Orange on Trial. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Scott, Wilbur J. Vietnam Veterans Since the War: The Politics of PTSD, Agent Orange, and the National Memorial. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004. Staff of the Institute of Medicine. Veterans and Agent Orange: Length of Presumptive

American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Period for Association Between Exposure and Respiratory Cancer. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004. U.S. Institute of Medicine. Committee to Review the Health Effects of Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides. Veterans and Agent Orange: Herbicide/ Dioxin Exposure and Acute Myelogenous Leukemia in the Children of Vietnam Veterans. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003. Wilcox, Fred A. Waiting for an Army to Die: The Tragedy of Agent Orange. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press, 1989.

AMERICAN DEFENDERS OF BATAAN AND CORREGIDOR American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor (ADBC) is a veterans’ organization that was chartered by Congress in March 1946. Its first meeting occurred at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, on January 26 of that year, with 80 men in attendance. The official publication is called the Quan. This organization of World War II veterans is comprised of service personal who participated in the Battle of Bataan Peninsula and the battle for Corregidor Island during the Japanese conquest of the Philippines in 1942. This veterans’ organization is unique in not only representing all service branches that participated in these campaigns, but also it represents men and women who suffered unmitigated horrors as prisoners of the Imperial Japanese armed services. The American defense of the Philippines was certainly a ‘‘forlorn hope’’ and the Death March of Bataan was only the start of years of suffering on the part of these veterans. Years of deprivation in POW camps was followed by the Japanese evacuating

| 33

these Americans in horrific conditions on ‘‘death ships’’ to even worse conditions in mainland China, specifically Mukden, Manchuria, with forced labor in coal mines. Being removed to China meant that these veterans were among the last to be freed and suffered from the beginning of the American war effort to beyond the official surrender of the Japanese Imperial forces. The battle for Corregidor was the end of the Japanese campaign in the Philippines. The U.S. Army Force Far East had retreated to the peninsula of Bataan for a last stand. When this position fell in April 1942, only the island fortress of Corregidor held out until May 6, 1942. The American and Filipino POW’s were marched off in what later became known as the ‘‘Death March of Bataan.’’ Of the many heroic American and Filipino troops involved, two veterans’ groups that stand out in memory due to memorials enacted by their communities are the New Mexico 200th and 515th Coast Artillery and the 33rd division of the Illinois National Guard based in Maywood, Illinois. Both of these units would suffer 50 percent casualties by the end of the war. Many individual stories can be found at the organization’s Web sites The loss of the Philippines to the Japanese was the largest single defeat of American armed forces in history. This loss was not the result of lack of efforts by American soldiers and sailors, but rather a product of isolationist policies. These soldiers and sailors bought the United States time to prepare its defenses and take the offensive in the Pacific. Their sacrifices forced the Japanese to commit more forces than they originally planned to the conquest of the Philippines, which denied them their use in making their drive of conquest south of the Philippines.

34 |

American Gold Star Mothers

In addition to holding reunions, the organization heightened public awareness of the extraordinary role played by these veterans in the war. In April 2007 U.S. and World News Newswire reported approximately 200 remaining veterans of this organization, which had numbered about 500 by its fifth national convention in 1951. This demographic note made the news wire due to the fact that ADBC was seeking an official apology from the Japanese prime minister while on an official visit to the United States for the war crimes perpetrated on the U.S. forces POW’s at this time in history. John Stoll See also Prisoners of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA); World War II Veterans; Filipino-American Veterans

Further Reading Bataan Corregidor Memorial Foundation of New Mexico Inc. www.FranzosenbuschHeritageProject.org. History of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor, Inc. http://philippinedefenders.lib.wv.us/html/history.html. ‘‘American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Seek Apology and Closure for POW Abuse.’’ General Editorial News, Send2Press Newswire, April 10, 2007. www .send2press.com/newswire/2007-040410-004.shtml.

AMERICAN GOLD STAR MOTHERS Mothers of Americans serving in World War I could place a Gold Star on their windows, hence the name by which they were commonly known. This practice followed the tradition of families who had lost sons in military conflicts of

hanging a star in their homes’ windows, to express both their loss and their pride in their family members’ service and sacrifice. The mothers were frequently praised in orations, newspaper articles, and poems. During the 1920s they lobbied Congress to sponsor a pilgrimage so they could visit the graves of their sons who were buried overseas. Numerous congressmen sponsored the necessary legislation; those opposed emphasized the cost, to which the response was that the mothers had saved the government over $20 million by not having the veterans’ bodies returned. Advocates of the bill stressed the special emotional bond between mothers and sons: fathers were not included in the proposals. American Gold Star Mothers was established in 1928, after a decade of planning on the part of the organization’s founder, Grace Seibold. Seibold had been inspired to found the organization after the death of her 24-year-old son, George Vaughan Seibold, a pilot who served in World War I. Devastated by her loss, Seibold wanted to establish a national organization designed to provide emotional support for grieving mothers who shared her plight. Seibold aspired to have her group not only serve as a network which would enable bereaved mothers to meet with and console one another, but also to be an organization whose members would actively volunteer with veterans’ organizations and advocate for veterans’ rights in their communities. After several years of planning, Seibold and 25 other mothers gathered in Washington, DC, on June 4, 1928, to celebrate the founding of the American Gold Star Mothers. According to the organization’s rules upon founding, any American woman could apply to be a

American Indian Veterans Gold Star Mother if her son or daughter had died in service during World War I. In 1929, Congress finally authorized mothers and (at the last minute) widows to travel to Europe. Further pilgrimages were approved in 1931 and 1933. They were sent off following ceremonies praising their sacrifices, and despite the Depression, were accommodated at government expense in cabins on the ocean voyage, then in first-class hotels, spent a week in Paris or London in addition to visiting their sons’ graves, and were received by high-ranking British and French officials. African American mothers were segregated and accommodated on steamers rather than luxury liners despite their protests and War Department publicity that the pilgrimages treated all mothers equally. In subsequent decades, the organization opened its membership to mothers who had lost children in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other zones of conflict in which America’s military had engaged. American Gold Star Mothers has undergone some changes over the course of its existence. The organization now allows stepmothers and adoptive mothers to apply for membership, and, in 2005, the group admitted its first non-American citizen as a member. Despite these changes, however, the fundamental goals and ideals of the organization remain unchanged. Founded to honor and aid veterans’ military service, American Gold Star Mothers is dedicated to at once promoting world peace and encouraging patriotic feeling and activism amongst Americans both within and outside of the military. The organization staunchly refuses to take sides in political debates about war, and it is not affiliated with, nor does it support, any political parties

| 35

or organizations. In 2005, the American Gold Star Mothers issued a public statement clarifying that they were not in any way involved in, or supportive of, the pacifist organization American Gold Star Families for Peace. The organization hosts national conventions every year and often sponsors events on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and Gold Star Mothers Sunday, which takes place in late fall. American Gold Star Mothers works closely with numerous veterans’ rights organizations, and members have always been heavily involved in volunteering in veterans’ hospitals. Born in the wake of one mother’s grief, for more than seven decades, American Gold Star Mothers has sought to promote international peace, honor the service of fallen members of the military, increase patriotism within the American public, and advocate the rights of America’s veterans. Holly M. Kent See also World War I Veterans; American War Mothers; Blue Star Mothers

Further Reading American Gold Star Mothers. www.goldstarmoms.com. Graham, John W. The Gold Star Mother Pilgrimages of the 1930s: Overseas Grave Visitations by Mothers and Widows of Fallen U.S. World War I Soldiers. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2005.

AMERICAN INDIAN VETERANS Native American Values and Warriors American Indians were part of the U.S. military from the very beginning and

36 |

American Indian Veterans

until recently joined the military in the highest numbers of any ethnic group. One in four Native males is a military veteran, a rate four times higher than Anglo-Americans. But enlistment varies greatly, depending on the strength of a given tribe’s warrior tradition and how right or wrong individual Natives perceive a war to be. Also unique are the many cultural and spiritual traditions American Indians bring into the military and how they use their military experiences for cultural survival and renewal. Native participation in the military was often heavily promoted by whites who believed in assimilation and saw war as civilizing. American Indian servicemen were generally not formally segregated. In fact, there was a great effort to ensure they integrated, exposing them to the influence of white soldiers. Efforts to assimilate notwithstanding, the military eventually came to accept and admire Native Americans’ own military traditions, which were especially useful in subduing their own people. The image of ‘‘the Indian’’ in the nonNative mind as fierce yet in need of discipline played a powerful part in what role Natives have had in the U.S. military. The admiration that Anglo-American military leaders had for Natives became so strong that they emulated Native ways and incorporated them whenever possible. Some military planners sought to channel what they perceived as ‘‘savagery’’ in Indians or hold up Native martial abilities as an image for non-Natives to emulate. For most American Indians, patriotism and love of country mean very different things than what they mean to most non-Natives. Most Natives think of themselves as citizens or members of a tribal nation first, or dual citizens of both their tribe and the United States. Many,

most notably the Six Nations of the Iroquois, do not think of themselves as American citizens at all and even refuse to register for the draft or enlist as Americans, choosing instead to volunteer as foreign nationals. Within American Indian tribes are many traditions about veterans carried over from older warrior traditions. These include warrior societies, songs for warriors or veterans, and ceremonies and personal medicine, including spirit guides. Traditionally a warrior society carried out an amalgam of the roles of policing and supervising hunts and raids, teaching the young, caring for the elderly and helpless, punishing criminals, and carrying out a wide variety of rituals. Warrior societies, therefore, have much in common with Anglo-American veterans’ groups, such as the American Legion, that supervise youth through Boy Scout or baseball groups, seek to preserve memories of their deeds through ceremonies, perpetuate a spirit of patriotic devotion to the community, and attempt to care for aged and disabled veterans and their families. To that effect, Native Americans have composed new songs about the contemporary veterans’ tradition in the old established styles, with Native performers singing about the meaning of military service to their cultures and peoples. Native American songs about veterans differ from Anglo-American ones in a far more extended display of respect for and solemn honoring of the dead and in the ritual preparation and spiritual sanction provided by Native war and flag songs. Songs and ceremonies performed before sending a soldier off to war strive to prepare and warn the individual that war is a dissociative and alienating state. In these and other Native songs, the

American Indian Veterans actions of the soldier, usually not the war itself or its purpose, is the focus of cultural and spiritual sanction, much as veterans associations now emphasize support for American troops in Iraq instead of exalting the purpose of the war itself. Native American flag and war songs also aim for an explicit reintegration of the individual into the community from the unnatural state of war. Contrary to what is portrayed in old Hollywood movies, generally Native spiritual beliefs teach that warfare is an unnatural or disruptive state, one that must be extensively ritually prepared for in order to survive with mind and body intact. Ceremonies before war are intended to protect and prepare the soldier. Personal medicine takes the form of medicine bags, pouches, or other blessed or sacred items. Often Native servicemen rely on spiritual guides, which could be an ancestor or an animal. Ceremonies after the war honor their service and reintegrate them into the community and out of the unnatural state of war. The greater society could learn much from these practices, as since Vietnam the failure of Americans in general ceremonially to recognize and reintegrate service personnel upon their discharge has been seen as a major source of psychological and economic problems for veterans. Beginning with the Vietnam War and particularly during the second Iraq War, most American Indians increasingly questioned the intent behind American wars. Participation in the military has declined, even while the need for honoring and supporting veterans has not changed. Many Natives now regard the purposes of the contemporary military with ambivalence or even disgust while continuing to respect the men and women who choose to enter it.

| 37

The American Revolution Although most Native Americans fought for the British during the Revolution, realizing full well that they were the only possible protection from the land hungry colonists, significant numbers sided with the Americans. The surviving New England Indians, who had converted to Christianity and were living either in ‘‘praying villages’’ or had integrated into the multiracial societies of the seaboard cities, accompanied their neighbors into battle. While four of the six nations of the powerful Iroquois Confederation under Joseph Brant joined with the British, the Oneidas and the Senecas took the American side. In the Ohio Valley, too, Delaware Indians led by Cornstalk and White Eyes also took the patriot side. The Revolution taught these proAmericans the majority of Indians had chosen correctly. Cornstalk and White Eyes were murdered by frontiersmen who had come to regard all Indians as their enemy. The massacre in 1782 of 96 pacifist, neutral Moravian Indians at Gnadenhutten in present-day Ohio turned nearly all the Ohio Valley Indians against the Revolution. They were not finally subdued until the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 During the War of 1812, members of the Six Nations who remained in the United States began the war as allies of the United States. The Iroquois fought as light infantry in the war, which suited them well. In the War of 1812, many American troops came from local militia units without uniforms and came and went as dictated by their own needs. Iroquois behavior seemed often not so

38 |

American Indian Veterans

different from largely white militias. During the war, the United States began paying formal wages and pensions to the Iroquois warriors, leading to their integration into the army. The year 1814 marked the last time the Iroquois fought entirely independently, under their own leaders. In 1814 U.S. Army Major General Jacob Brown organized the Indian Volunteer Corps, with white company officers and Native field officers. At least five Iroquois women received widow’s pensions. Many later Six Nations veterans trace their family veteran traditions to this war. However, after the war many Iroquois veterans sold or otherwise lost their lands and pride as white settlers moved to western upstate New York in the aftermath of the war. This decline was arrested by the spread of Handsome Lake’s religion in the 1820s, which repudiated Christianity and the white values of private property and individualism. To symbolize his conversion to the new faith, the aged chief Cornplanter (ca. 1750–1836), who had reluctantly fought for the British in the Revolution before siding with the Americans in the War of 1812, broke the sword and burned the uniform he had been given by George Washington—for selling his people’s ancestral lands so Pennsylvania could have a seaport on Lake Erie for the paltry sum of $5,000.

Indian Scouts The relatively small number of Indian Scouts are written about and memorialized more than all other Native veterans combined, in history books, novels, and films. Some of the better works of history depict scouts as neither ‘‘Tontos’’ nor ’’sellouts’’

but as having agency and making rational choices within their cultural context. The Indian Scouts set a precedent for some tribes of adapting older warrior traditions In U.S. military service, Pawnee scouts were one of the largest groups, even forming their own battalion and fighting as allies of the United States against the Lakota (Sioux). Virtually every living Pawnee traces his or her ancestry back to at least one of the hundreds of men who served as scouts from 1864 to 1876. The Apache nation similarly memorialize their original scouts, the very ones who helped pursue Goyathlay (Geronimo) and forced his surrender, rather than the Apaches who fought against the United States. Scouts sought practical advantages for themselves and their people. It is important to remember that there is no monolithic Indian consciousness or single society. Now, as then, Native Americans have a diversity of attitudes toward various strategies they had to use in order to survive in what became a white man’s world.

Civil War Twenty thousand Natives served in the Civil War. Historian Laurence Hauptman argued that Indians’ motives for enlisting including poverty, dependence on or a desire to be integrated into the United States, adventure, alliances, treaties, traditions, gaining status among other Indians, the draft, and, above all a tenuous existence which led them to gamble on taking one side or another. Three hundred Iroquois joined the Union side, including two who served as army surgeons. Though it did not last, for a time Iroquois received concessions from the New York state government for their service, being declared competent to vote and be citizens.

American Indian Veterans Further west, Oneidas in Wisconsin, fellow Six Nations relatives, came as reluctant latecomers to the Civil War. Because they had been subjected to constant land swindles, Oneidas saw less reason to join. The tribe divided over how to respond to white removal efforts. Anglo draft resistance near the reservation may also have influenced them. Some local whites saw the Oneidas as replacements who could be used to avoid having to actually go to war themselves, and bounties for enlistment caused many Oneidas cynically to agree. In the Delaware Nation, 170 out of 201 of their men in the Union army enlisted instead of being drafted. Captain Falleaf, or Panipakuxwe, recruited Company D of the 2nd Kansas Home Guard. After the war, Falleaf petitioned the Interior Department so that he and his people could live as before, under communal landholding. About 125 Menominee enlisted during the Civil War. One-third of them had been killed by war’s end. Over 90 engagements were fought in the West that involved Native Americans. The most numerous tribe in the region, the Cherokees, who were living in what became Oklahoma, split. The majority of the unpopular federal Indian agents in the region before the war had been Southerners and tried to convince the Native Americans to take the Confederate side. This encouraged most Indians to favor the North, although the most famous Cherokee who participated, Brigadier General Stand Watie, fought for the South. (He died in 1871 remaining loyal to the Lost Cause.) The Indians allied with the Confederacy out of fear or feeling abandoned by the United States, and under pressure from Confederate forces on three sides. Many of those who initially joined the Confederacy abandoned it and deserted at

| 39

the first opportunity, often en masse. The small number of Cherokees who had not been forced to migrate west were an interesting paradox, often insisting they were American citizens but fighting for the Confederacy. William Thomas recruited 200 as a home guard in North Carolina, the Junauska Zouaves. As in the case of New York state and the Iroquois, the state of North Carolina conceded the Eastern Band the right to live in the state in recognition of their service. Many other Indians living in the South, particularly the Pamunkeys and Lumbees, joined the Union side to preserve their communities in the face of long conflicts with white Southerners. Unlike African American veterans of the Civil War, some of whom became Homesteaders or Buffalo Soldiers, the Civil War did not appreciably change the status of most Indian veterans, who continued to live on reservations. Those who did choose to join the Grand Army of the Republic or Confederate Veterans Associations were welcomed and honored by their comrades, and they were entitled to the same pensions and benefits.

The Spanish-American and Philippine Wars The most famous Native soldiers of the war served in the Rough Riders. Future World War I Commander-in-Chief ‘‘Black Jack’’ Pershing celebrated the famous charge up San Juan Hill as an incident of racial reconciliation, but he remained in the minority among Anglos. Newspaper accounts luridly trumpeted stereotypes with Buffalo Bill’s claims that he had 600 Lakotas ready to fight the war. No such group ever appeared. Of the 34 battle casualties suffered by

40 |

American Indian Veterans

Oklahomans during the war, more than half came from Indian territory. George Bird Grinnell, best known as a painter and naturalist, proposed raising regiments of Native soldiers, ironically because of his bigoted opinion of some immigrants, notably Italians. The most famous of the Indian boarding school superintendents, Richard Pratt, asserted that Native wartime service vindicated his assimilationist approach to education; but simultaneously he betrayed an assumption of Natives as ‘‘naturally’’ suited for warfare. The Spanish-American War also enrolled first-known Native women veterans, the Congregation of American Sisters, an order of Lakota Catholic nuns from Fort Berthold Reservation. They joined the U.S. Army as nurses, pushed by a strong belief in assimilation by their leader, Father Francis Craft, a Mohawk mixedblood who founded and led the order.

World War I Up to one half of American Indians did not have the status of citizens at the start of World War I. Some Natives did look upon the military as an avenue toward white notions of civilization for themselves, but these ideas usually came from boarding schools, which Natives (most famously Jim Thorpe at the Carlisle Indian School) had attended in an extended Americanization effort. Many Native communities did not take part in the war or even tried to refuse to do so. The Native people who took part most eagerly were, in fact, the most assimilated. Volunteering turned out to be the greatest, in some cases 100 percent, among Natives from government boarding schools.

Tribes with strong martial traditions had lesser, though still high, enlistment. The U.S. government was willing, however, to bend its assimilation program when realizing what it perceived as Indian ‘‘savagery’’ could help the war effort. Native dancers went on tours to raise money for war bond drives, even dancing in towns hostile to Native Americans before the war. In military camps, the YMCA held ‘‘Indian nights’’ where Native soldiers could listen and dance to their own music and speak in their own languages. Isolated tribes, or those with little or no martial tradition, had an enlistment rate of less than one percent. There was massive draft resistance among some Natives, particularly Navajos, Utes, Goshutes, Pamunkeys, Mattaponis, Creeks, and Seminoles. There was even draft resistance among tribes with strong warrior traditions, such as the Lakota on Rosebud Reservation and the Chippewa of Sucker Point, Minnesota. During the war, racist notions about alleged Native savagery became widely used for propaganda. The German public, given a steady diet of lurid stories about Native people through pulp novels, were shielded as much as possible from the knowledge that their soldiers faced American Indians in combat. Some German military commanders even ordered their snipers to make a special effort to shoot Native soldiers whenever they could be identified on the assumption they were both better shots and would be crueler to those they fought or captured. Combat for Native soldiers had other special dangers brought by their perceived ‘‘natural’’ abilities. Anglo officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) frequently pushed Native soldiers into especially dangerous situations. Casualties among Native

American Indian Veterans Americans were five times higher than in the army as a rule. ‘‘Pagan or heathenish’’ practices, including dances or ceremonies, remained specifically forbidden on reservations under threat of withholding rations from the families of those who participated. Largely in the aftermath of World War I, after Native communities and elders petitioned Indian Bureau commissioner Cato Sells to allow ceremonies with patriotic elements, traditional ceremonies began to be celebrated openly once again. Even then some restrictions stayed in force. Bloodletting or ‘‘selftorture’’ remained specifically forbidden, along with the ‘‘reckless giveaways’’ or potlatches, in which Indians exhibited status by offering large amounts of presents to each other, and ‘‘immoral’’— that is sexual—relations that sometimes occurred in these ceremonies. Interference from authorities and the war’s atmosphere of patriotism brought many changes in ceremonies. Authorities banned chest incisions and skewers during the Sun Dance, so some dancers fulfilled their vows by having the Red Cross painted on their chest and giving blood to the Red Cross instead. One of the most famous selfappointed ‘‘friends of the Indian,’’ the eccentric Joseph Dixon, called for military schools for all Native male youths from ages 8 to 18. This was not far from the American Legion’s call for universal military service so all Americans could benefit from the training they themselves had received. Once they completed schooling, all Native males would then be drafted into military service. Their permanent position in U.S. society would be as ‘‘America’s Cossacks.’’ Dixon’s proposal failed to win support because many whites still hoped to see Natives

| 41

assimilated into white society. In fact, nearly all American Indians became citizens in 1924, the same year Congress reduced immigration quotas to their lowest point in American history. Loyal Indians were contrasted with the southern and eastern European immigrants who had been perceived as socialists and slackers during the war.

World War II In World War II, Native veterans brought their traditions into military service in unprecedented numbers. The war greatly expanded the opportunity to continue, revive, or establish warrior traditions in which the veteran took the place once accorded the tribal warrior. A newer practice also began as a part of Native veteran experience in World War II, that of intertribal syncretism, where tribal nations without any or much of a significant warrior tradition began to imitate the warrior ethos of other nations. Native American women’s societies also played a role in reviving traditional ways. By the time of Pearl Harbor, all Native peoples of the United States had American citizenship forced upon them. The authors of this last act specifically designed it to not give Natives legal rights but to take them away. During 1940 the peacetime draft was also instituted, and with all Natives legally citizens, the main legal basis that tribal leaders used to argue against the draft vanished. Citizenship acts had nothing to say about the legal domination the Bureau of Indian Affairs had over Native lives and did not give Natives the right to vote. Eleven states specifically barred Natives from voting until the late 1940s or 1950s. Citizenship acts also did not settle land claims, protect religious or

42 |

American Indian Veterans

civil rights, or do anything about the widespread discrimination and poverty Natives faced. Some groups still engaged in mass civil disobedience for the same reasons they had in World War I: dissatisfaction with the treaty relationship between themselves and the United States and the frequent failure of the government to honor its agreements. Eleven tribal nations argued for draft exemption and pointed to treaty provisions to support their positions. The Hopis claimed conscientious objector status because of their pacifist tradition. Officials responded that Hopi objections were considered nationalist, not religious. Twenty-one Hopis went to prison for draft evasion. The Hopis formed a lobbying group called Hoping Hopis and drew their funding from other pacifists, such as the Quakers. Hopis finally received conscientious objector status long after the war in 1953, when tribal spokesman Thomas Banyaca finally convinced President Eisenhower their pacifism was genuine. The Zunis obtained missionary exemptions for those in tribal religious roles. Some Pueblos also argued, unsuccessfully, for religious exemptions because their beliefs did not allow haircuts, which the military required. A few Navajos and many more Seminoles resisted the draft by simply disappearing into territory not frequented by outsiders. The Seminoles based their case on a still-official state of war between their nation and the United States. Seminoles in Florida had never been defeated and finally agreed to peace in 1943 on their own terms. In Arizona, one band of Tohono O’odhams maintained they were Mexican citizens since their nation had not been consulted on nor had they recognized the Gadsden

Purchase of 1853. Their leader, Pi Maccuddam, also known as Pia Machita, led a yearlong resistance campaign that drove away federal marshals and tribal police at first, before Maccuddam and several followers went to prison. However, by and large Native American nations were energized by the expansion of their political freedoms and their new economic and military roles in ‘‘mainstream’’ America. Native peoples also recognized the very real and pointed threat the Axis posed to nonwhites and to the United States, a nation-state they relied on for protection as much as they resented its dominance. Some Natives also identified very much with the lives and struggles of subject peoples who fought against the Axis, including the Filipinos against the Japanese. Nowhere did the coincidence of Native American and U.S. interest and traditions come together as vividly as with the Code Talkers, Native Americans primarily from the Navajo but also other nations whose language could not be deciphered by the enemy (see American Indian Veterans, Individuals). After the war, they formed the Navajo Code Talkers Association. Only in 1968 were their activities declassified, and only in 1982 did they receive their first official recognition—a certificate and a ‘‘Day’’ authorized by President Reagan. Eight years later, 29 Code Talkers received the Congressional Gold Medal, all but 5 of them posthumously. In 2007, the state of Texas awarded the Texas Medal of Valor to 17 Choctaw Code Talkers, and the same year Congress awarded its Gold Medal not only to all surviving Code Talkers, but to their tribes as well. Native and Inuit (Eskimo) peoples of Alaska had little history of warfare prior to the coming of Europeans. In World

American Indian Veterans

| 43

William Kien, center, a Navajo Code Talker and former marine who served during World War II, trades war stories with fellow marines prior to receiving the Congressional Silver Medal during a ceremony recognizing more than 200 Navajo Code Talkers in 2001. [AP Photo/Rick Scibelli]

War II they became the first Americans to fight the Axis after the initial surprise attacks and the only soldiers to fight on U.S. soil. The Alaska Territorial Guard organized itself prior to World War II, with militia organized down to the village level, including a village captain. Later they became the Eskimo Scouts, a special unit of the Alaska National Guard, using surplus World War I rifles to defeat the invasion of the Aleutian Islands by the Japanese. They did so without receiving recognition or even pay until the 1950s. Alaska Governor Ernest Gruening personally recruited half of the 300 enlistees and attributed their enthusiasm to a desire to keep their sacred homelands safe from further outside invaders. After they entered military service, many Natives eagerly took part in

traditional ceremonies on a scale not previously seen. An alternately curious and mystified Anglo public eagerly accepted reports of these practices. Famed correspondent Ernie Pyle described seeing Native dances prior to battles in Sicily, Normandy, the Philippines, and Okinawa. Just as in World War I, Natives performing traditional dances became commonplace at war bond sales and blood drives. Native soldiers attended Christian religious services in high numbers, only to follow them by going to Native meetings that had songs and dances in their own tongues. Native songs became one more way the old traditions adapted to new realities in a syncretic manner. In war songs the serviceman and the war against an enemy of the United States or Canada took the place of the warrior and the battles with

44 |

American Indian Veterans

another Native enemy. Flag songs began as a surreptitious way to get around the prohibition on Native ceremonies after World War I. The sheer volume of Native songs about World War II, the fact that they remain popular today, and the fact that new ones paying tribute to veterans are still being written all the time, underscore how much of a watershed event World War II became in Native lives. No other war brought such cultural and social change in such a short time. The war also gave a new role to Native women’s societies. They sometimes preceded and prepared the way for warrior societies to emerge after the war. The War Mothers’ Societies stood out more than any other. These groups originally began as an Anglo-American institution, one that women of the Kiowa, Comanche, Cheyenne, Otoe-Missouri, and Pawnee nations adapted to their own needs and combined with practices from Native American women’s societies. They properly prepared warriors prior to warfare, invoked sacred powers of protection for absent warriors, and welcomed and honored the warriors on their return. World War II was a turning point for Native peoples. It brought an end to the de facto segregation and isolation imposed upon them by the reservation system. Most Native peoples went from a reliance on subsistence farming and hunting to a cash wage economy in an incredibly short time. Native veterans and communities created a newer permanent and far more widespread tradition during World War II. Service in the U.S. military became both respectable, as never before, and was integrated with traditional practices. Even when faced with white stereotypes, Natives used such notions for their own ends. A widespread

cultural revival aided Native adaptation to dramatically changing conditions and confirmed Native cultures as the greatest strength of American Indians, not the liabilities many whites believed. This war became the closest thing to an unambiguously ‘‘good war’’ as seen by Native peoples, and the high enthusiasm reflected that.

Korean War About 29,700 American Indians served in the Korean War. The post-World War II era saw the beginnings of an assault on Native communities, with assimilationists trying to end the reservation system in a program called Termination. Native experiences during the Korean War and after became, ultimately, both catalyst and overture to the Red Power struggle of the 1960s and 1970s. Some of the American Indian Movement’s (AIM) most famous leaders were Korean War veterans, who were far less willing to be as passive as they perceived the World War II generation to be. Both American Indians and the larger American society did not see winning or losing the Korean War as the same sort of all-out struggle as World War II. North Korea was not nearly as obvious and ominous a grave threat as the Axis to either Native peoples’ existence as nonwhites or the future of the United States. Thus the complete mobilization that World War II had brought did not happen during the Korean War. A dramatic growth in warrior societies seems to be the greatest single change in Native cultures with the advent of the Korean War. As a direct response to Termination, some tribal nations revived their warrior societies out of fear that traditions would be lost.

American Indian Veterans

Vietnam War Coming home, Native veterans faced a fundamentally different experience than did their non-Native buddies. The war was every bit as unpopular among Natives as non-Natives, but Native communities did not expect the Native veteran to shoulder the blame for the war. Native communities instead made a great effort to shoulder the veteran’s pain. Unlike communities in the wider society where it was easy for the educated and upper class to evade the war, in Indian communities the experience of sending sons off to fight was more widespread. The honor given to a veteran by his Native community likely became the most positive thing in his life. The war reinforced, or even created, mutual bonds between veterans and their communities, as well as between indigenous communities in other Indian nations. The war also further alienated Natives from ‘‘mainstream’’ American society in a profound way, and not just because the military compared the conflict to the old Indian wars. Atrocities against Vietnamese by American soldiers sickened many Native servicemen, who often identified with the Vietnamese more than AngloAmericans. The rising civil rights and Red Power movements played a huge part in Natives’ alienation and identification with the Vietnamese. This generation of Natives was the most alienated Natives had ever been from whites, precisely because it had the greatest amount of contact with whites. That alienation expressed itself in two ways: a building upon ties with the most traditional parts of Native communities, and an often explosive contempt for all the wrongs done to Native peoples.

| 45

Native communities by the 1960s had greatly urbanized; a lower proportion of people lived on the reservations due to the government’s policy of relocation and Native flight into the urban and migrant labor workforces. Enough Natives had been off reservations long enough for large numbers to grow up having never seen their traditional homelands. In some cities, such as Minneapolis, Natives formed or were forced into ‘‘red ghettos.’’ In other cities, such as Los Angeles, there were no predominantly Native neighborhoods, but there was still a Native community at large. Yet anti-war protest remained relatively unheard of in Indian communities. Most Natives regarded draft dodging with disdain, as something unthinkable. The chance to take part in now wellestablished veteran traditions going back to at least World War II overrode political objections. Upon returning home, Native veterans of Vietnam combined with some of their Korean War elders to expand the warrior society role to an explicitly political one. While not explicitly veterans’ organizations such as the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars, to a considerable extent these associations fulfilled the same function of perpetuating values learned and fought for in the service—the use of comradeship and training acquired under fire to better the conditions of veterans and their communities. The first of the more overtly political warrior societies, the American Indian Movement (AIM), formed in 1968. Russell Means has become the most famous of its initial group of about 200 founders. The AIM chose to apply the warrior society concept in a way quite different from tradition, ironically influenced by the anti-war movement

46 |

American Indian Veterans

and groups such as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War that engaged in highly publicized protests. AIM members boarded and seized the Mayflower II on Thanksgiving Day 1970, disrupting celebrations of the 350th anniversary of the Pilgrims’ landing at Plymouth Rock. As many of the members lived near Minneapolis, they also seized abandoned property at the Naval Air Station near that city the same year. On July 5, 1971, they occupied Mount Rushmore, symbolically taking back the nation through appropriation of the images of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt on its face. In 1972 they launched protests throughout the nation to call attention to the ‘‘Trail of Broken Treaties,’’ the name adopted from the ‘‘Trail of Tears’’ that characterized the forcible removal of the Cherokee nation from Georgia in the 1830s. This culminated in the occupation and sacking of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Headquarters in Washington, DC, in November in which 24 members were arrested. In 1973, AIM protestors were routed when they attempted to seize the Custer County Court House. The most famous action undertaken by AIM, however, was the 73-day occupation of the Pine Ridge Lakota (or Sioux) Reservation in South Dakota, the site where Sitting Bull and followers of the Ghost Dance religion were massacred by the cavalry in 1890. In 1993, AIM split into two groups, the AIM-Grand Governing Council, which decided to work within the system and try to change public attitudes, and the more militant AIM-International Confederation of Autonomous Councils. In 2007, the latter formally declared the secession of the Sioux nation from the United States as the Republic of Lakota.

Many AIM members spoke of learning very well the lessons from the National Liberation Front they fought in Vietnam, that mobility and determination of a people fighting for their homeland could defeat an enemy weighed down with technology and with lesser motivation or staying power. Post-Vietnam Native communities proved to be more resilient than Anglo America, recovering more quickly from the war’s trauma. Though the war deeply divided mainstream America, it proved, ultimately, an enormously unifying experience for Native communities. Urban Indians struggled to reconnect and unite with tribal communities. The latter discovered they had new allies among people the federal government hoped would forget they were ever Indian. Intertribal ties were created and strengthened in an unprecedented way.

The Gulf, Afghan, and Iraq Wars It has been easy for Native Americans to draw explicit parallels between the conflicts in the Middle East and those of their peoples’ histories. Native peoples equated what the United States was doing in the Middle East with Manifest Destiny. In some ways the September 11 attacks ignited a hostile atmosphere much like the anti-Japanese hysteria that gripped the West Coast following the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the biggest fears of many Natives became being mistaken for being Middle Eastern. The reaction of many Native people to the attacks combined sympathy for the victims and thoughtful reflection and soulsearching. So far there is only anecdotal evidence on how September 11 affected whether

American Indian Veterans, Individuals Natives joined the military, but a surge in Native enlistment does not seem to have happened. Many Native people said this was not their war even while sympathizing with the victims of the attacks and supporting Native service personnel. There has been an enormous outpouring of Native support for the troops of the second Iraq War but not for the war itself. Some returning Native veterans and their families have led criticism of the war. Where American Indians once had an enlistment rate at four times that of Anglo-Americans, by at least one count Natives are currently in the military in only slightly higher numbers than Anglos. As of 2008, there were two principal Native American veterans’ associations: National American Indian Veterans is recognized by the National Congress of American Indians and the National Association of State Directors of Indian Affairs as the representative of the needs of Native American, Alaskan, Samoan, and Hawaiian veterans. Its Congressional charter was pending as of 2008. There is also the National Native Americans Veterans Organization. It was founded in 2004 by Tom Berry in Oklahoma and now has members in 20 states from 15 federally recognized tribes, using the Internet as a principal means to connect and communicate with its members. Both groups call attention to the fact that Native Americans make less use of services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs than others. They therefore seek to educate Indians about the benefits available, lobby where needed with the government in individual cases, and provide support and connections among those Native American veterans whose economic plight would make them more inclined than most veterans to suffer the

| 47

problems of suicide, depression, and unemployment. Al Carroll

Further Reading American Indian Movement—Grand Governing Council. www.aimovement.org. Carroll, Al. Medicine Bags and Dog Tags: American Indian Veterans from Colonial Times to the Second World War. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2008. Holm, Tom. Strong Hearts, Wounded Souls. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1996. International Confederation of Autonomous Councils of the American Indian Movement. www.americanindianmovement.org. Meadows, William C. Kiowa, Apache, and Comanche Military Societies: Enduring Veterans 1800 to the Present. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1999. National American Indian Veterans. www.naivonline.org. National Native American Veterans Association. www.nnava.org. Navajo Code Talkers Association. www.navajocodetalkers.org.

AMERICAN INDIAN VETERANS, INDIVIDUALS Military veterans have long made up much of the leadership within American Indian communities, from tribal councils and tribal presidents to activists to artists and educators. Veterans have also comprised some of the most famous and respected Native Americans in the United States. Generally, American Indians see the role of a Native veteran of the U.S. military as having taken on much of the earlier role of a warrior in the times before conquest and reservations. Native Americans view warriors as individuals

48 |

American Indian Veterans, Individuals

who make personal choices to endure sacrifices for the good of their people. As such, even though their people may have fought against white Americans in the past and they have grievances against them in the present, Native American veterans are honored for their courage and willingness to put their lives on the line for the greater good. The honor they bring to their people is also appreciated (Meadows 1999).

War of 1812 The earliest written account we have from a Native veteran of the U.S. military comes from Pequot soldier William Apess (1798–1839). Apess’s book A Son of the Forest (1829) is one of the very earliest written autobiographies from an American Indian. Scholars in American Indian studies often discuss Apess as a survivor of genocide, displacement, and self-hatred, and his conversion to Christianity as a response to these brutal hardships. Other scholars focus on questions of authenticity and his mixed-blood status. (Apess, like many Pequots in the colonial and early national period, also had black ancestry.) Apess served as a drummer in the War of 1812 because he objected to carrying a weapon. The U.S. government failed to pay him the bounty or land promised to him, leading Apess angrily to criticize American society for denying rights, citizenship, and voting to Natives. Apess became a fairly wellknown Methodist minister. Much of the remainder of his life was devoted to preaching and seeking to convert other Natives to become Christians, as well as being a noted political activist. His other written works include Eulogy on King Philip (1836), the Native American leader killed in the war of 1675–1676

which bears his name, two tracts proselytizing for the Christian faith, The Experience of Five Christian Indians of the Pequot Tribe (1833) and The Increase of the Kingdom of Christ (1831), Indian Nullification of the Unconstitutional Laws of Massachusetts or the Pretend Riot Explained (1835), and one political treatise, On Our Own Ground (1992) (see also War of 1812 Veterans).

Indian Scouts Sixteen American Indians received Congressional Medals of Honor for valor in combat during their time in service as Indian Scouts: Alchesay, Blanquet, Chiquito, Mad Bear, Elsatsoosu, Pompey Factor, Jini, Kelsay, Machol, Nannasaddie, Nantaje, Adam Paine, Isaac Payne, Rowdy, Kosoha, and John Ward. Most were Apaches fighting other Apaches during the Apache wars. Other Indian Scouts also became famous for their leadership or fighting abilities. John Horse became famous as a commander in the Seminole Indian Scouts, which included many black/Indian mixedbloods and maroons (runaway black slaves) adopted into the tribe. A Crow Indian Scout, Curly, became well known as the sole survivor of General George Armstrong Custer’s command at the Battle of Greasy Grass (Native American terminology) or Little Big Horn. The Eskimo Scouts, organized as part of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II, produced several members who later led efforts for Alaskan statehood. Percy Ipalook was an Inupiaq and a chaplain in the Guard. He later became a territorial and then a state congressman. Frank Peratrovich, a Tlingit and a captain in the Guard, had an even more distinguished career. He became a

American Indian Veterans, Individuals territorial and then a state congressman, a state senator and the senate president, and then finally the Alaska State Constitutional Convention vice president.

The Civil War Ely Parker (1828–1895) is the bestknown Native veteran of the Civil War on either side, and one of the bestknown American Indian veterans of all time. As a teenager he was already a translator for the Seneca Nation, one of the Six Nations of the Iroquois or Haudenosaunee Confederacy. By his twenties he also was negotiating treaties on his people’s behalf with officials in Washington, DC. He studied law in Ellicotville, New York, but was not permitted to take the state bar exam as he was not an American citizen, a status granted to Native Americans only in 1924. Parker also worked extensively with Lewis Henry Morgan, known to history as the Father of American Anthropology. Rejected by New York state officials both in his attempts to enlist and to raise a company of Native Americans to fight at the start of the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant made Parker his aide and military secretary. By the war’s end he had attained the rank of colonel. Parker took part in the negotiations for Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House, personally drafting the surrender terms. When Grant became president of the United States, he appointed Parker as commissioner of the Indian Bureau. Parker was the first Native American to serve in that post, initiating Grant’s peace policy and attempting to clean up the rampant corruption and abuse of Native peoples by the bureau. Both bigots hostile to his Seneca heritage and those

| 49

who made their fortunes cheating on contracts for supplies to Indian reservations conspired against him. His opponents accused him, ironically, of fraud. He was cleared of all charges, but the scandal still weakened his position enough to force him to resign. Parker later earned a fortune on Wall Street and worked with the New York City Police Department. For most of the latter part of his life, Parker was also a highly respected sachem (counselor) for the Seneca Nation. Henry Berry Lowrey was Lumbee and a Union guerilla leader during the Civil War. He became famous among his fellow Lumbee as the ‘‘Robin Hood of Robeson County’’ in North Carolina for his daring raids. Confederates falsely accused his father and two brothers of his actions and executed them. The Lowrey Band, made up of Lumbees, blacks, and whites, retaliated with a campaign of robbery against wealthy plantation owners during most of Reconstruction. After negotiating with the North Carolina governor’s office, Lowrey disappeared in 1872. No one ever collected the reward on him. By some accounts he lived on in secrecy into his nineties. Lowrey’s name still lives on today in Lumbee legends as a man who would fight to defend his people, and his memory has been honored with pageants, plays, and awards (see also Civil War Veterans).

The Spanish-American and Indian Wars The most famous Native soldiers of the Spanish-American War served in Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, personally recruited by the future president. William Pollock, a Pawnee, carried the

50 |

American Indian Veterans, Individuals

regimental flag. Cherokee soldier Thomas Isbell served as one of four point men for the Rough Riders. Two Yaqui brothers, Joseph and Frank Brito, also served. Joseph went on to take part in crushing the Filipino struggle for independence and went missing in action. They were presumed dead but Frank survived. After the war he became something of a rarity Indian reservations, a Native law officer. At different times he was a deputy, sheriff, town constable, city jailer, and game warden. He later joined the National Guard, taking part in the pursuit of revolutionary commander Pancho Villa into Mexico by General Pershing’s Expeditionary Force. Clinton Rickard (1882–1971), a Tuscarora soldier in both wars, became a veterans’ group organizer and the founder of one of the earliest civil rights and Native sovereignty organizations, the Indian Defense League of America (IDLA). Rickard thought of veterans’ organizations as similar to the old warrior societies. After the war he joined the Army and Navy Union, the United Spanish War Veterans, and a Masonic lodge. Rickard himself played the lead role in organizing Post 8242 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on the Tuscarora reservation. Throughout the remainder of his long life, he and the IDA led struggles against the loss of Native lands, the registration of Iroquois as aliens, and the struggle against Iroquois men being drafted in both World War I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War (see also Spanish-American War Veterans).

World Wars I and II The most famous Native veterans of both wars are the Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. But many people are

unaware that there were American Indian Code Talkers in both world wars, and that they came from as many as 17 tribes in addition to the Navajo. Members of the Assiniboine, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Chippewa, Choctaw, Comanche, Cree, Dakota, Hopi, Kiowa, Lakota, Menominee, Muscogee-Seminole, Navajo, Oneida, Osage, Pawnee, and Sac and Fox (Meskwaki) peoples all used their Native languages as codes the enemy could not break. Some historians argue that fully realized secret codes, as opposed to largely speaking in their Native tongues, were developed only by the Comanche, Hopi, and Meskwaki Code Talkers, as well as the Navajo. Of all of them, the Navajo Code Talkers are the most famous because they were the most numerous by far (slightly over 300), the most widely used for the longest period of time, and the ones who have been the most widely held up as heroic, particularly by Natives Americans themselves. Outside of the Navajo, the exact numbers of the Code Talkers of other tribes and when and where they were first used is often a matter of much debate. Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas urged the passage of the Code Talkers Recognition Act in 2001 to pay tribute to Code Talkers from all the relevant American Indian tribal nations. Her office compiled the following lists of Code Talkers by tribe except the Navajo; Dakota/Lakota, 15; Comanche, 14; Choctaw, 8; Sac and Fox, 8; Hopi, 3; Assiniboine, 5; Kiowa, 3; Muscogee, 2. Native American Code Talkers served in World War I, although who had the honor of serving first is disputed. Some argue the first known use of American Indian Code Talkers was a group of about 40 Cherokee troops used by the

American Indian Veterans, Individuals 30th Infantry Division serving during the Second Battle of the Somme in World War I. Others claim the first were a group of 14 Choctaw men in the Army’s 36th Infantry Division in several battles in the Meuse-Argonne Campaign, also during World War I. In 1989 the French government presented the Knight of the National Order of Merit, the highest honor France can bestow, to the Choctaw Code Talkers. In World War II, Choctaw Code Talkers were used once again. Fourteen Comanche Code Talkers took part in the D-Day Invasion of Normandy as part of the 4th Infantry Division. Comanches of the 4th Signal Company created over 100 code terms using their own language as a basis. Five Assiniboines served as Code Talkers in Company B of the 163rd Infantry Division. Eleven Hopis were drafted, serving in a war most of them opposed since they were part of a largely pacifist tradition that forbids warfare except in self-defense. The Hopis developed a code they used to assist U.S. Army intelligence in the campaigns in the Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, and the Philippines. The Sac and Fox Code Talkers used their language against the German enemy in North Africa. Major General Paul Mueller, commander of the U.S. Army’s 81st Infantry, recruited from between 12 and 14 Lakotas from South Dakota to serve as Code Talkers for the division, including one he chose to keep personally assigned to him. The Navajo Code Talkers are the bestknown group of Native veterans in history, revered precisely because their achievements are a great intellectual feat alongside their acts of physical courage in battle. After Phillip Johnston, the son of a missionary to the Navajos,

| 51

convinced Major General Clayton Vogel to recruit Navajos, the Navajo Code Talkers devised their own unbreakable and unwritten code on their own, one that was never breached by the Japanese nor transmitted inaccurately. Even captured Navajo POWs who were not Code Talkers could not fathom the code, and so the Japanese tortured them to no purpose. The Navajos used this feat of military bravery and military intelligence to promote a positive image of themselves and gain a prestige and recognition that eludes most other Native veterans. The number of books, articles, and films dedicated to the Code Talkers easily outnumbers all other media about Native veterans combined. There is even a Navajo Code Talkers action figure, manufactured by Mattel and sold in Arizona. Navajo Code Talkers provided coded transmissions for virtually the entire Marine Corps in the Pacific theater for nearly the entire duration of U.S. involvement in the war. By some historians’ assessments, many of the American victories in the Pacific (particularly the Battle of Iwo Jima) would not have been possible without the Navajo Code Talkers’ role. Carl Nelson Gorman and his son Rudolph Carl (R. C.) Gorman, a veteran of the Korean War, are perhaps the two most famous Navajos in America. Carl Gorman was one of the original group of Navajo Code Talkers in World War II and a painter. He later became best known as president of the Code Talkers Association, the veterans’ association formed by the group, and worked to bring recognition to the Navajos who created the complex language-based combat code that the Japanese military never broke. After the war, Carl Gorman became a respected artist and teacher.

52 |

American Indian Veterans, Individuals

During his time in California, he became a leader of the urban Navajo community in Los Angeles before returning to the Navajo Reservation to accept the position of director of the Navajo Arts and Crafts Guild. The image of the flag raising at Iwo Jima became one of the most enduring icons of World War II. When the public heard that an American Indian was one of the flag raisers, many took this as a hopeful sign of American society’s inclusiveness. In less than a week’s time, Pima Indian and Marine Ira Hayes went from being just another grunt in combat to a celebrity constantly mobbed on tour. Hayes and the other marines from the flag raising raised tens of millions of dollars in war bond drives, becoming beloved symbols of patriotism and hope. After the war, sensational tabloids dwelled in lurid detail on Hayes’s arrests for public intoxication, often using the ugliest of racist stereotypes about Natives and alcohol. But to many he remains solely a war hero honored for being awarded the Silver Star and for bringing attention to Native servicemen with the flag raising. The Navajo Code Talkers depict him on their medals issued by the Navajo Nation, both dressed as a traditional Pima warrior on horseback and in the flag raising in spite of the fact that Hayes was neither Navajo nor a Code Talker. In Urshel Taylor’s painting of the flag raising, Hayes is also dressed as a traditional Pima warrior alongside the white marines dressed in modern military uniform (see Iwo Jima Memorial). Oscar Howe was a Yankton Dakota veteran and one of the first modern American Indian artists, known for his watercolor paintings. Howe first became famous as one of Santa Fe, New Mexico’s Indian School artists. In the late 1950s he protested

against Native artists being required to paint only in ‘‘traditional’’ styles. Howe was also an art professor at the University of South Dakota from 1957 to 1983 and was named Artist Laureate of South Dakota (see also World War I Veterans and World War II Veterans).

Korean War R. C. Gorman has the distinction of being the leading Native painter in the United States, ‘‘the Picasso of American Indian artists’’ or ‘‘Picasso of the Southwest.’’ He enlisted in the navy during the Korean War. Afterwards he studied in Mexico and was heavily influenced by murals by Jose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera, and David Alfaro Siqueiros. He first became famous as a painter in the 1960s, purchased his own gallery in Taos, New Mexico, and by the 1970s was one of the premier painters and sculptors in the country, above all famous for his depictions of American Indian women as mother figures. R. C. Gorman has also written an acclaimed biography of his father, Power of a Navajo (1996), as well as his own autobiography Radiance of My People (1992). Cherokee and Vice Admiral Joseph ‘‘Jocko’’ Clark was the first Native American to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy and ultimately became commander of the Seventh Fleet. Clark led his self-proclaimed ‘‘Cherokee Strikes’’ during the Korean War, surprise raids and bombings of supplies behind enemy lines to destroy enemy morale. Clark is one of only two American Indians of the twentieth century to be honored with an American navy ship named after him, the USS Clark. The other, Ho Chunk Corporal Mitchell Red Cloud, received the Medal of Honor

American Indian Veterans, Individuals posthumously during the Korean War for bravery in battle and was also honored with the naming of the USNS Red Cloud. Sergeant John Rice, also of the Ho Chunk nation, was killed in the Battle for the Pusan Perimeter. Rice drew nationwide attention when funeral officials barred his remains from a burial plot in the town of Sioux City, Iowa. The funeral actually stopped in midservice after the funeral director realized Rice was not white. This treatment provoked nationwide outrage. President Truman himself intervened and offered the family a plot in Arlington National Cemetery. Senators Marion Butler from Iowa and Guy Gillette from Nebraska, Secretary of the Interior Julius Krug, and a colonel as a representative from the Joint Chiefs of Staff all attended Rice’s second funeral. Vine Deloria Jr., Lakota activist, historian, intellectual, lawyer, and professor was perhaps the most influential Native author in American history. Deloria first came to public notice during the midst of the Vietnam War as the leading figure in the Red Power movement. From 1964 to 1967 Deloria was executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, the leading American Indian civil rights organization, made up of representatives of the great majority of federally recognized tribal nations. His book Custer Died For Your Sins, his ‘‘Indian manifesto,’’ was published in 1969 and served as a blueprint for action for many Red Power activists as well as the first introduction to contemporary Native voices for many non-Natives. More than 20 influential and controversial books followed. Deloria also led the movement for Native sovereignty using the Anglo-American legal system against

| 53

itself, founding the Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Much of the leadership of the Red Power movement in the 1960s and 1970s came from Native veterans of the Korean War. Ojibwe and U.S. Navy veteran Dennis Banks founded the American Indian Movement in a Minneapolis city jail in 1968. He took part in the famous occupation of Alcatraz Island and led numerous other protests, including the Trail of Broken Treaties, the seizure and occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs office in Washington, and the occupation at Wounded Knee. He taught briefly at Stanford University and was the American Indian chancellor at Deganawidah Quetzalcoatl, a two-year Indian college in California University. Banks also had roles in several films, appeared on several musical albums, and coauthored his biography, Ojibwe Warrior (2004). Another important Native American veteran intellectual is Gerald Vizenor, an Ojibwe poet, novelist, journalist, scholar, and author and editor of numerous books. Vizenor lied about his age and joined the National Guard at age 15 in 1950. After his time in service he became a community advocate as director of the American Indian Employment and Guidance Center in Minneapolis. He later was a reporter and editor at the Minneapolis Tribune, then a professor at a number of universities, and provost of Kresge College. Vizenor is the author of Native Liberty (2009) and series editor of Native Stories: A Series of American Narratives and American Indian Literature and Critical Studies, which currently comprises 50 volumes published by the University of Oklahoma Press since 1995. In the 1960s and 1970s he was named as one of the members of the

54 |

American Indian Veterans, Individuals

‘‘Native American Renaissance’’ in modern literature. His novels include Hiroshima Bugi, Wordarrows: Whites and Indians in the New Fur Trade, Darkness in Saint Louis, Bearheart, Bearheart: The Heirship Chronicles, and The Heirs of Columbus, in addition to poetry, plays, short stories, screenplays, and even new versions of traditional tribal tales. Pioneering rock music guitarist Link Wray was a Shawnee veteran of the army. Wray’s many innovations included the use of feedback, fuzz, and power chords. Forming Lucky Wray and the Palomino Ranch Hands, they became the house band for the television show Milt Grant’s House Party, a Washington, DC, version of American Bandstand. Wray had the first of many hits with ‘‘Rumble,’’ which was banned from some radio stations for supposedly promoting juvenile delinquency. Known for his hard-driving instrumental dance music beloved by the surfer subculture, many hits followed for Wray from the 1950s into the early 1970s, among them ‘‘Rawhide,’’ ‘‘Ace of Spades,’’ ‘‘Jack the Ripper,’’ and ‘‘The Batman Theme.’’ The Who, Jeff Beck, Jimi Hendrix, T Rex, Neil Young, and Bob Dylan all cited Wray as an influence. In the 1980s and 1990s his music enjoyed a revival thanks to its use in films such as Pulp Fiction (1994), Desperado (1995), Independence Day (1996), 12 Monkeys (1995), and Pink Flamingos (1972). Wray was honored posthumously twice in 2006, first with a Lifetime Achievement Award from The First Americans in the Arts and later with an induction into the Native American Music Hall of Fame (see also Korean War Veterans).

Vietnam War Most of the rank and file of the American Indian Movement and some of its most famous leaders, including Carter Camp (a.k.a. Ponca) and Stan Holder (a.k.a. Wichita), were veterans of the U.S. military. Many were part of elite military units that had served in counterinsurgency training such as Long Range Patrols in Vietnam, combat control for the Air Force behind enemy lines, and the Phoenix Program of covert assassination for the CIA. Some Native veterans have written about their experiences; Leroy Tecube (Jicarilla Apache) in Year in Nam (2000); Delano Cummings (Lumbee) in Moon Dash Warrior (1998); Roy Benavidez (Yaqui) in Medal of Honor (1995); Woody Kipp (Blackfoot) in Viet Cong at Wounded Knee (2004); and Dwight Birdwell (Cherokee) in One Hundred Miles of Bad Road (2000). Most of the better-known American Indian scholars of today joined academia and also became activists after serving during the Vietnam War, following in the footsteps of activist professor Vine Deloria Jr. Tom Holm and Steve Russell are both Cherokee veterans who have written on Native veterans of the Vietnam War. Robert Allen Warrior and Jace Weaver are both Lakota scholars in American Indian studies. Kiowa educator Cornell Pewewardy has written on stereotypes in education, particularly on ‘‘Indian’’ sports mascots. Don Trent Jacobs is a Cherokee professor and former dean of education at Oglala Lakota College, as well as a noted peace activist. Several noted Native fiction writers were also Vietnam War veterans. Vincent Mendoza is the son of a Creek mother

American Indian Veterans, Individuals and a Mexican father and author of Son of Two Bloods (1999). Stephen Cole was Lakota and Ojibwe and author of Silent Warrior (1994). Phillip Red Eagle is a Dakota and Salish veteran and author of Red Earth: A Vietnam Warrior’s Journey (2007). Troy Johnson is a decorated Seminole veteran and history professor at California State University at Long Beach who writes primarily about the Red Power movement, particularly the landmark occupation of Alcatraz by Indians of all nations. He is the author of The Indian Occupation of Alcatraz Island and the Rise of Indian Activism (1996), You Are on Indian Land! Alcatraz Island 1969– 71 (1995), and coeditor of American Indian Activism: Alcatraz to the Longest Walk (1997) and Red Power: The American Indians Fight for Freedom (1999). Alfred Taiaiake was born and raised in Kahnawake, in Canada, but like many other Mohawks in Canada he is a veteran, in his case of the U.S. Marine Corps. He is a well-known activist and author on Native American sovereignty issues, directing the Indigenous Governance Program at Victoria University in British Columbia. He is the author of Wasa´se: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (2005); Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (2009); and Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism (1995). Ron Querry is a Choctaw veteran of the Marine Corps, professor, and fiction author. His books include a work of history, Discrimination: Native Americans and the Struggle for Equality (1993); an autobiography, I See By My Get Up (1987); a murder mystery, The Death of Bernadette Lefthand (1995); a collection

| 55

of essays, Growing Old at Willie Nelson’s Picnic (1983); and a novel, Bad Medicine (1998). Michael Naranjo is a Santa Clara Pueblo veteran and renowned sculptor. Naranjo was blinded by a grenade and also lost the use of his right hand in Vietnam in 1968. He taught himself to sculpt with clay, using only his sense of touch and his left hand and employing his fingernails to etch lines. He and his wife established the Touched by Art Fund. Naranjo has been honored with numerous awards for his artwork and his work on behalf of disabled people. Ed McGaa is Oglala Lakota and was a decorated fighter pilot in the Vietnam War. An extremely controversial figure to other American Indians, McGaa is one of the leading figures in the New Age movement, teaching whites his version of American Indian spiritual traditions in numerous books and workshops. To many American Indians such actions are unethical and derided as ‘‘pay to pray,’’ while McGaa himself has been heavily criticized and protested against as a ‘‘plastic shaman’’ by traditional elders and Native activists. In 2002, McGaa ran to become the Green Party’s candidate for U.S. Senator from Minnesota but lost in the primary after controversy over comments of his that were perceived as anti-Semitic (see also Vietnam War Veterans).

The Gulf and Iraq Wars Kevin Shore, an Ojibwe from the White Earth Reservation, became the most famous Native veteran of the Gulf War. Born in 1967, Shore served in the navy in the Middle East from 1985 to 1988, acquiring what later came to be known as Gulf War Syndrome after large

56 |

American Indian Veterans, Individuals

numbers of personnel became afflicted with it after the invasion of Kuwait. Confined to a wheelchair, in 2000 Shore wheeled across the country in what he called the Gulf War Illness Awareness Ride to raise awareness of the illness and protested the lack of government attention to the problem. Hopi soldier Lori Piestewa first came to the public’s attention as a member of the U.S. Army’s 507th Maintenance Company in Iraq. In March 2003, her unit was ambushed after making a wrong turn near Nasiriyah, Iraq. Ten of its members were killed or captured, the most famous of whom was her friend Jessica Lynch. When U.S. commandos rescued Lynch from an Iraqi hospital, they also recovered nine bodies, including Piestewa’s. Piestewa became a symbol of the sacrifices of the war to both Natives and non-Natives. Tributes to Piestewa poured in from Natives Americans of diverse tribal background and locations, from as far away as bases in Europe, Japan, Africa, Australia, and the Middle East. Piestewa’s family traveled across the country as honored guests at powwows, schools, concerts, and other gatherings, meeting tribal presidents, celebrities, and First Lady Laura Bush. A NavajoHopi bike-run event was also organized to honor her memory. The National Native American Games changed its name to the Lori Piestewa National Native American Games. In Arizona, the effort to honor her focused on renaming a local landmark from its formerly racist name, Squaw Peak, to Piestewa Peak in her honor. After a very bitter debate, the measure passed. The Piestewa family and friends became famous for speaking out in criticism of the Iraq War, over a year before Cindy Sheehan’s

famous series of protests (she spent 26 days camped outside President George Bush’s ranch in Texas in August 2005 protesting the war in Iraq in which her son was killed), after it first became public that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq (see also Gulf War Veterans; Afghan War Veterans; Iraq War Veterans). In films and literature, Native Americans play an ambiguous role: they are brave fighters for their freedom yet doomed to submit to the advancing white civilization, or they serve as loyal scouts and soldiers who accompany the white men and assist in the destruction of their own cultures. In real American history, Native American veterans have fulfilled both roles. They not only serve loyally —and disproportionately to their numbers in the general population—but also use their service as a vehicle for advancing both themselves and improving the situation of their people in American society (see also Film and Veterans; Literature and Veterans). Al Carroll See also American Indian Veterans

Further Reading Carroll, Al. Medicine Bags and Dog Tags: American Indian Veteran Traditions from Colonial Times to the Second Iraq War. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2008. Malinowksi, Sharon, and George H. J. Abrams, eds. Notable Native Americans. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995. Meadows, William C. Kiowa, Apache, and Comanche Military Societies: Enduring Veterans 1800 to the Present. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1999.

American Legion

AMERICAN LEGION The American Legion has been the most influential and at the same time the most controversial veterans’ group in U.S. history. The organization has successfully promoted a system for providing services to veterans and has continued to champion the needs of veterans. Moreover, it has developed extensive community service programs. Much of the controversy surrounding the group dissipated long ago, but at one time, some groups asserted that it was a major threat to democracy in the United States. Although such fears ultimately remained unrealized, certain Legionnaires, in their zeal to protect ‘‘American’’ institutions, unquestionably denied some citizens their rights of free expression, including effective union activity.

Formation Throughout U.S. history, veterans have banded together to confront the problems facing them after military service. Thus, even before the end of World War I, many service personnel began discussing the need for their own veterans’ organization. The American Legion, however, only began in France after the Armistice of November 11, 1918. Once the war had been won, discipline and morale within the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) began to deteriorate, and on February 15, 1919, 20 officers ranking from major through colonel, who were reserve or National Guard rather than regular army officers, were brought together in Paris to discusses these problems. After preparing recommendations for AEF headquarters, they met informally to consider the establishment of a

| 57

veterans’ group in part to deal with current issues within the army in France and in part to cope with postwar challenges within the United States. They formed a temporary committee but recognized that a more representative planning structure was needed. In particular, there was a need to involve enlisted personnel, who would be the great majority of any veterans’ organization. The next step was the ‘‘Paris Caucus’’ that took place March 15–17, 1919. Officers remained in the majority, but a number of enlisted men were participants. Early on, the decision was made to include service members who had remained in the United States during the war, and, therefore, another caucus was held in St. Louis, May 8–10, 1919, to permit them to participate in planning. Even then, officers were the majority of attendees, but there was a significant increase in the proportion of enlisted personnel. After veterans in Europe and in the United States had an opportunity to express their views, there was a need for a general meeting to make a more formal beginning. That gathering took place in Minneapolis early in November 1919. Despite a great deal of discussion and some disagreements, a consensus about the nature of the organization and its tasks was reached. The American Legion would represent the needs of veterans and would broadly support the political, economic, and social institutions that made the United States a democracy and a world power. At the same time, the Legion was not to involve itself directly in partisan politics, although it would advocate particular pieces of legislation. ‘‘Policy, not politics’’ was to be the guiding principle for the Legion. After its establishment, the Legion became one of the few organizations ever to receive

58 |

American Legion

American Legion Parade passing reviewing stand, Kansas City, Missouri, November 1, 1921. [Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division]

a charter from Congress (see World War I Veterans).

Membership The American Legion has come to represent the U.S. veteran. It has been by far the largest and strongest veterans’ organization, Although it has not generally exceeded a quarter of the total number of veterans of a particular war or of the veteran population generally, many of its members seem to have been what political scientists term ‘‘opinion leaders,’’ that is, those who can influence others, thereby increasing the reach of the organization considerably. No voluntary group is likely to capture the allegiance of its entire potential membership, and, therefore, the Legion’s success in attracting and retaining members has been phenomenal. Despite the increasing numbers of deaths of World War II and Korean War veterans, the American Legion has maintained a high level of membership. Although the organization’s membership is below its postWorld War II peak, the figure for 2006 of about 2,600,000 members is nearly comparable to the 3,000,000 of 1946, when the Legion had grown enormously owing to the influx of World War II veterans. It remains one of the largest membership groups in the United States. Initially, the Legion considered everyone in the AEF a member, but soon there

was a need to formalize membership. In contrast to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Legion admitted men and women who had remained in the United States during World War I, which amounted to nearly half of those enrolled. Ever since, the Legion has welcomed everyone who has served in the armed forces during wartime or overseas expeditions that resulted in combat (for instance, see Korean War Veterans, Vietnam War Veterans, Gulf War Veterans, Afghan War Veterans, Iraq War Veterans). Civilians have been not eligible to join except for Merchant Marine veterans of the World War II era. Some politicians, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, successfully claimed membership based on their activities during World War I. Roosevelt, for example, had been assistant secretary of the navy. Generally, Legion members are those veterans who have felt positively about their military service and who have been proud of their own efforts. At the end of a generally humorous but vivid account of World War I service written in the 1920s, one character exclaimed, ‘‘Good old Army! Good old War! It’s given us something to talk about and think about for all the rest of our lives.’’ Such a former soldier was doubtless the kind of person who would have joined the Legion (Upson 1928, 271). For many young men who had never been far from

American Legion home, and especially for the nearly threequarters of World War I veterans who did not see combat, the war was the greatest adventure of their lives, and lasted, on average, about a year. The Legion made a conscious effort to differentiate itself from the Civil War veterans’ groups, which divided Union men and Confederates into their own organizations (see Grand Army of the Republic; Civil War Veterans; Confederate Veterans Associations). Spanish-American War Veterans had made a start toward harmonizing sectional differences, but their organization was relatively small. The reconciliation the Legion achieved came at a high cost, unfortunately. Like most efforts to end the bitterness engendered by the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Legion was a reunion of Northern and Southern whites at the expense of African Americans (see African American Veterans— World War I). Although many African Americans joined integrated posts in the North or segregated posts in the South, their membership levels did not reach those of whites. Most southern states excluded blacks from membership, as otherwise they would have been a majority, or nearly so, in states where they did not enjoy the right to vote. For its first two decades, the Legion was exclusively an organization of World War I veterans. Although Civil War and War of 1898 veterans organizations often cooperated with the Legion, they did not merge with it. In the World War II era, the Legion had to decide whether or not to admit the new veterans. On the one hand, it was obvious that if World War II Veterans were admitted, they would soon form the majority of members and would increasingly assume leadership positions. On the other hand,

| 59

a much larger membership would give the Legion the ability to express its concerns with even greater authority than during the 1920s and 1930s. After some discussion, the Legion chose to admit World War II Veterans, and Congress changed the Legion’s charter accordingly. Later, the charter was modified to admit many post-World War II veterans. There have been and continue to be gaps in eligibility owing to the nature of the Cold War era, however. An example of such a gap is the time between February 1, 1955, and February 27, 1961. Since August 2, 1990, anyone serving even a day of active duty in the armed forces will be admitted. A highly important element in the Legion has been its auxiliary, consisting of either women relatives of veterans or women veterans, from World War I to the present. The latter are allowed to join both the Legion and the auxiliary. Within recent decades there has been about one auxiliary member for every three Legion members. Not only has the auxiliary contributed mightily to the Legion’s organizational efforts and its community service but also to its lobbying activities. The auxiliary was well positioned to endorse military preparedness in opposition to pacifist organizations and especially those women’s groups critical of what they viewed as militarism, for example.

Representing Veterans’ Interests Those who doubt the need for an organization that insistently pursues the interests of veterans need only look at the history of veterans’ programs in the United States. The Legion has been forced at times to wage bitter campaigns even to defend the rights of the disabled,

60 |

American Legion

let alone other veterans (see Disabled Veterans). The Legion has often faced the unwillingness of the federal veterans agencies to acknowledge some of the physical and mental ill effects of military service. Campaigns for the recognition of the ravages of Agent Orange from the Vietnam War and Gulf War Syndrome for the 1990s proved necessary, for example. Although many promises were made to both men and women in service during World War I, the federal government was totally unprepared to provide the services needed by veterans, partly because responsibility for veterans affairs was dispersed through several federal agencies, and partly because the war ended as mobilization itself was still just underway. Only in 1921 were the relevant functions gathered in a Veterans Bureau, which became the Veterans Administration in 1930, and the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1988. The Legion played a major role in persuading Congress to enact each one of these changes. Consolidating veterans’ functions in 1921 did not end existing problems, which included official corruption. At length, with the Legion gathering much of the evidence, the head of the Veterans Bureau, Charles R. Forbes, was convicted of various crimes and was sentenced to prison. The first concern of the Legion has always been to ensure that veterans who were disabled as a result of their military service receive appropriate medical treatment and compensation from the federal government. Other than championing disabled veterans and their needs, the Legion initially left the question of benefits to Congress, but that attitude soon changed in the face of congressional inaction. Even then, the Legion, which continued to emphasize service to the nation rather than lobbying for benefits,

initially opposed a World War I veterans ‘‘bonus’’ (see Bonus March). After the war, which had brought significant inflation to the United States, veterans began comparing the small pay—a dollar a day for privates—they had received with the high wages and salaries of civilian wartime workers, and, therefore, the Legion proposed a four-point approach to adjusting these disparities, which would provide veterans with land, vocational education, loans for purchasing homes, and the controversial ‘‘adjusted compensation.’’ Although some took advantage of vocational training, veterans were most concerned about the ‘‘adjusted compensation’’ issue, since that would be the only benefit most veterans would obtain. Despite resistance from many Legion leaders, securing this ‘‘compensation’’ became a key Legion demand by the early twenties. Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge opposed a bonus. Because of the history of Union veterans, Harding assumed that pensions would eventually be awarded to veterans of World War I, making a ‘‘bonus’’ unnecessary. Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, became a major foe of payments to veterans. ‘‘Bonus’’ opponents insisted that paying it would jeopardize economic recovery in the United States. After a protracted struggle, Congress established a system of life insurance policies in 1924 that would fall due in 1945, thus postponing payments. As the Depression deepened in the early 1930s, demands grew for immediate payment of the bonus, but for a time the Legion was reluctant to oppose Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt over the issue. As its

American Legion

| 61

General James A. Drain, the one-armed veteran who is playing golf here with one-legged Colonel Charles R. Crosfield, was elected National Commander of the American Legion in 1925. [National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-101989]

members became more insistent, the Legion fought hard, and, in 1936 Congress authorized immediate payments. Both the 1924 and 1936 legislation were passed over presidential vetoes. Ordinarily, the Legion made a point of expressing loyalty to the incumbent president as much as possible, but these were instances in which membership opinion outweighed other factors. The Legion learned a great deal from World War I and its own experiences in the 1920s and 1930s. Therefore, when World War II brought the prospect of a new generation of veterans, the Legion crafted a program for veterans that went far beyond its claims for World War I veterans and that was much more

beneficial for the larger society than previous veterans’ measures. One of the most important elements in the plan was the payment of veterans while they attended schools or colleges. Although it is thought of primarily in terms of assistance to college students, many more World War II veterans attended vocational schools than colleges or universities. Within a few months in 1943– 1944, the Legion, principally former Commander Harry Colmery, wrote the legislation and worked closely with members of Congress to have the measure passed that became known as the GI Bill (see Servicemen’s Readjustment Act). The law soon revealed some deficiencies, but these were remedied quickly by amendments.

62 |

American Legion

Although the Legion is generally considered a veterans’ advocate, it has expressed its views strongly on many issues, including national defense, internal security, and immigration. Despite the range of its interests, however, the Legion has as a general rule been skillful in avoiding positions on issues that threatened to divide the organization and that would endanger its continued power. For instance, although most Legionnaires opposed both Prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, the national organization was reluctant to take a stand against either for fear of losing members. While many political candidates have skillfully cited their Legion membership —nearly every eligible Congressman, state and local official, and president has joined—the Legion has generally been adamant in refusing to make specific endorsements of candidates or to provide candidates with campaign funds. Still, Legion speeches and publications take note of candidates who support Legion programs, and those who do not. Legion lobbyists have proven expert at organizing ‘‘barrages’’ of letters to persuade officials to support legislation favored by the Legion. Although the Legion (and its opponents) like to stress its political power, leadership in the Legion has not been a stepping stone to higher office. Legion founder Theodore Roosevelt Jr. was defeated by Al Smith in the race for governor of New York in 1922; another founder, General Leonard Wood, had failed to obtain the republican presidential nomination in 1920. Louis Johnson, Legion commander in 1932–1933, later served as Franklin Roosevelt’s secretary of war, the highest post obtained by a major Legion official.

Military Preparedness The origins of the Legion lie in part in the preparedness movement that developed during the early-twentieth century, especially between 1914 and 1917. Many of the most prominent leaders in the effort were associated with the Republican or Progressive Parties, but the democratic Wilson administration eventually began developing larger and better organized and equipped armed services even before the United States declared war on Germany in 1917. Among the preparedness groups was an American Legion that was established by some of the same people who were founders of the post-World War I organization, such as Theodore Roosevelt Jr. and General Leonard Wood. Critics of the Legion saw this earlier organization as proof that the American Legion of 1919 was far from a spontaneous movement among veterans and asserted that conservative, nationalistic leaders of the American Legion were simply continuing their pre-World War I attempts to mobilize U.S. citizens to support militarism and capitalism. On the other hand, some organization by prominent people was needed to mold the various small veterans groups taking shape into an effective national body. Many Legionnaires felt betrayed by the often haphazard mobilization of the United States in 1917–1918 and believed, accurately, that if the nation had been better prepared, casualties might have been reduced and the power of the United States would have been more effective earlier and would have ended the war more quickly. As it was, the army in France depended largely on aircraft and artillery pieces supplied by

American Legion the Allies rather than by the United States. Troop movements to Europe were impeded by the small size of the U.S. merchant marine. There was also a widely held belief among Legionnaires, especially leaders of the organization, that regular officers of the armed services had too little respect for the abilities of temporary service members and National Guardsmen, particularly officers. For some time, the Legion advocated what it viewed as fairer treatment of Reserve and National Guard officers and their deeper involvement in military planning. This element in Legion thinking soon lost its salience, perhaps because there were larger issues, such as combating pacifism, that brought regulars and other preparedness advocates together. Another facet of the Legion’s loyalty to the concept of the citizen soldier was its long-standing advocacy of what it termed ‘‘universal military training.’’ That did not mean merely a conscription system but rather short-term training that would include every man except for those who were totally unfit for military service. Training was to be provided by civilian personnel rather than members of the armed forces. This rather impractical approach to military training seems almost to have harked back to ‘‘musters’’ of the militia that had long been a tradition in the British colonies and later the United States. The Legion persisted doggedly through the 1920s and 1930s and the draft era in recommending some form of ‘‘universal military training,’’ and it lamented the demise of the draft in the 1970s, in part because of the Legion’s longtime assumption that military service was a privilege and obligation of all good male citizens.

| 63

Throughout its existence, the Legion has pressed for well-trained and wellequipped armed forces, generally with the stipulation that they should be backed by large numbers of trained citizen soldiers, on the ground that potential enemies will be less likely to attack an armed rather than a disarmed democracy. Given the large numbers of Legionnaires and their varied experiences as members of the armed forces, the organization has spoken with authority about defense issues. An example of the Legion’s vision was its strong support for aviation and its advocacy of a separate air service decades before the establishment of the U.S. Air Force. The Legion has favored some moves toward peace, such as formation of the United Nations, but it has devoted far more attention to insisting that the United States must be prepared to face potential enemies. During the 1920s and 1930s the Legion reflected the isolationist views of U.S. citizens generally, and it backed the ‘‘neutrality legislation’’ passed by Congress in the 1930s to prevent the nation from being drawn into another major war. As Germany, Italy, and Japan became increasingly aggressive, however, Legionnaires recognized the threats they represented, and in 1940–1941, the Legion powerfully assisted President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his controversial efforts to build U.S. defenses and to make the country an ‘‘arsenal of democracy’’ to aid the Allies. At the Legion’s 1940 Convention, an organized lobbying effort by Hollywood film producers called the ‘‘Fight for Freedom’’ defeated the isolationists who favored Charles Lindbergh, the nation’s most prominent isolationist, who hoped the Legion would endorse his opposition in

64 |

American Legion

supporting British efforts to fight Hitler’s Germany. The invasion of the Soviet Union by Axis forces in 1941 created a problem for the Legion. On the one hand, the Legion had been opposed to the Soviets and to domestic communists from the very beginning of its existence, but, on the other hand, by 1941 the Legion was clearly committed to intervention by the United States in World War II and to helping nations that were fighting the Axis. Legionnaires realized that the Soviet Union would be a major factor in the anti-Axis alliance, and, therefore, while continuing to condemn communism, supported aid to the Soviets. As with aid to Britain the previous year, some Legionnaires supported assistance as a way to keep the United States out of war, while others realized war would come and regarded the aid as the forerunner to inevitable involvement.

Internal Security Concerns Detecting and countering ‘‘internal subversion’’ has been one of the Legion’s major commitments, and it has drawn more criticism than any other Legion activity. In its early decades the Legion was not content to provide speakers and to issue publications that argued against doctrines being disseminated by socialists, communists, fascists, pacifists, and some civil rights advocates. Instead, its posts often tried to prevent what were viewed as ‘‘undesirable’’ or ‘‘disloyal’’ speeches from being given. Many Legionnaires were simply unable to accept the concept that a ‘‘marketplace of ideas’’ had to be maintained and that free exchange of opinions in that ‘‘marketplace’’ strengthened democracy. Instead, they believed that some speech

was so dangerous to the individual communities or to the United States generally that it had to be prevented. In the Legion’s view pacifists and sometimes liberals were linked to communism. When attempting to prevent addresses by those whom they regarded as ‘‘radicals,’’ Legionnaires sometimes threatened the owners of halls who rented facilities to their opponents with boycotts and unfavorable publicity. At other times, demonstrations were held, and efforts were made to disrupt those meetings and lectures that were held. It was at that point that the Legion overstepped the democratic tenets it professed to be upholding. The most serious confrontation between Legionnaires and those it viewed as radicals occurred at Centralia, Washington, on Armistice Day 1919. The events of that day are still much in dispute, but several Legionnaires were killed, and several members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were sentenced to prison (see World War I Veterans). Legion opposition to the Soviet Union and to communism is understandable given events in 1917 and 1918. Communists took control of Russia in good part because they promised peace, and, therefore, early in 1918, they made a precarious settlement with the Central Powers. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty allowed the Central Powers to shift troops from Russia to other areas. It is hardly surprising that Legionnaires bitterly resented a regime that had released hundreds of thousands of trained enemy soldiers to fight them. Thus, the Legion view of the Soviet Union was poisoned from the beginning. During the 1920s and the early 1930s, the Legion vehemently opposed recognition of the Soviet Union, and it continued to criticize the Roosevelt administration’s recognition in 1933.

American Legion Another controversial facet of the Legion was its stance on immigration policy and the treatment of immigrants. At first glance, its attitude seems to have been very much a part of the strain of extreme nativism in U.S. history. The Legion favored sharply reducing immigration and imposing nationality quotas in the 1920s, a position that suggests a similarity between its views and those of the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups. Although some Legionnaires were doubtless racists, the organization’s approach differed considerably from nativist organizations. Nevertheless, while some Legionnaires belonged to the Klan and there was considerable overlapping membership in certain states, the Legion differed from the Klan in that it welcomed Roman Catholic and Jewish members, had democratically elected officers, opened both its internal affairs and political lobbying to outside scrutiny, and unlike the Klan, which ceased to be a national force due to internal corruption in the mid-twenties, has remained almost completely free from any taint of corruption. What concerned the Legion the most were the apparent links between immigrants and radicalism in the immediate post-World War I years. Therefore, the Legion advised caution about admitting large numbers of immigrants and wanted to ensure that those people who were admitted became thoroughly ‘‘Americanized,’’ that is, that they fully understood the political, economic, and social institutions of the United States and that they firmly adhered to them. Thus, the Legion has been more concerned about the ideas and commitments of immigrants than with their racial characteristics or the countries from which they came. Like many Americans, the Legion opposed Jewish and other

| 65

immigrants from Central Europe in the late 1930s on the grounds not only that they would take away jobs in a stilldepressed economy, but also because it perceived most people from those countries to be either fascists or radicals. From about the late 1930s through the end of the Cold War, the Legion moved from the sporadic involvement of individual posts in what sometimes amounted to vigilante activity to cooperation with federal agencies at the national, state, and local levels. Close ties developed between the Legion and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI chief, welcomed the assistance that the Legion gave his organization. The Legion was pleased, moreover, by the emergence of the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate possible subversive activity, because it had long recommended the establishment of just that kind of congressional committee. Legionnaires continued to be fervent supporters of that committee throughout its stormy existence. Notorious examples of Legion mob actions include breaking the Boston police strike and attacking the Industrial Workers of the World in 1919 and 1920; breaking strikes on farms in California and the Longshoreman’s strike in San Francisco in 1934; and opposing the unionization of steel mills in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the late thirties. Legion posts were especially active in harassing Jehovah’s Witnesses who opposed entry into World War II in 1940 and 1941. Perhaps the most notorious Legion action was the attack against those who attended a Paul Robeson concert in Peekskill, New York, in 1949 (see Peekskill Riot). The idea that the Legion planned to overthrow the government during the

66 |

American Legion

early years of the Roosevelt administration, however, is a myth: the most plausible story is that unauthorized individuals falsely claiming to speak for the Legion as a whole approached General Smedley Butler, who was enormously popular with veterans, asked him to lead a coup, and Butler accepted their claims at face value. The Legion did, however, have ‘‘top secret’’ emergency plans to restore order in major cities during the Depression if there were attempted insurrections or total breakdowns in authority. While the Legion stressed that illegal activities by its posts or post members (who frequently insisted they were acting as individuals and not as Legionnaires) were not authorized by the national body, the fact that it did not take action against or expel these posts suggests it sympathized with their ends if not their means. By the forties, however, the Legion realized vigilante activities usually provoked sympathy for the victims and hostility toward the Legion; a few incidents such as the Peekskill/Robeson Concert aside, it stressed instead education and Americanism programs to promote patriotism rather than directly confronting radical groups.

Community Service In additional to pursuing veterans’ benefits, military preparedness, and the enhancement of internal security, the Legion has devoted considerable effort to a wide variety of general service activities. The American Legion has gone far beyond the Grand Army of the Republic and other pre-World War I veterans’ organizations in its commitment to community service. The national organization has supported a number of causes, including child safety, and Legion posts have been deeply involved with civic activities, such as

sponsoring boy and girl scout troops and athletic teams. Hundreds of scout troops, for example, have received support from the Legion. American Legion Baseball has been another major commitment of the organization, which has affected the lives of many thousands of boys. Legion essay contests on patriotic themes are another staple in schools throughout the nation. Much of the Legion’s community participation coincided with some of its other commitments, of course. Sponsoring scout troops and backing young peoples’ athletic teams was intended to develop good citizens who would be of unquestioning loyalty to the United States and to promote physical fitness which would reduce the number of young men unqualified to serve in the armed forces in the event of war. Legion Baseball, in fact, was developed in large part to attract young men away from activities sponsored by radical groups. Posts have also made important contributions during emergencies, such as floods, and have been particularly effective because they have often been prepared to provide emergency services before crises developed. During World War II, the Legion was very much involved in civil defense, such as enforcing blackouts and serving as air raid wardens, although not to the extent that the organization proposed (see also Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations).

Fraternal Aspects of the American Legion Although many of them have declined in significance within recent years, numerous fraternal and service groups such as the Elks, Kiwanis, Lions, and so forth, have absorbed the interest and energy of

American Legion millions of people in the United States and have been a highly characteristic feature of society in this country. These organizations have provided men and women and, frequently, both genders, with companionship and with opportunities to serve their communities. The Legion has much in common with the fraternal groups, such as the Knights of Columbus and Masonic bodies, although it has lacked the secrecy of the latter. Although there were provisions for elaborate rituals in the Legion, posts have largely dispensed with them. Socializing has always been an important part of the appeal of the Legion. To a degree its posts have been men’s clubs, although women can belong, which provide an alternative to bars and restaurants open to the general public. From its earliest years, moreover, the Legion has staged annual conventions that have attracted thousands of men and women (see Women Veterans, World War I to the Present). Given the size of the conventions, many cities have been anxious to host them, and at times, such cities have gone far in accommodating Legionnaires in search of entertainment, even accepting the establishment of Legion ‘‘courts’’ to deal with minor offenses by members. To many outside the Legion, its huge, and sometimes disorderly, conventions are the best-known feature of the organization. Legionnaires have wanted freedom to play at their meetings and conventions, and, thus, during Prohibition, the American Legion became an increasingly vocal critic of what President Herbert Hoover considered a ‘‘noble experiment.’’ Although the Legion has generally been cautious about tackling potentially divisive issues, it openly flouted Prohibition from its adoption in 1919 to its repeal in 1933.

| 67

Studies of the American Legion The Legion has sponsored several official histories of which Jones (1946) and Rumer (1990) are the most important. Both books provide a wealth of detail about the organization. In the 1930s and 1940s several books appeared that sharply criticized the organization, moreover. Critics attacked the Legion primarily for what they viewed as ‘‘red baiting,’’ including attempts to dictate to schools and colleges what could be taught, especially in respect to U.S. history, and to prevent what the Legion regarded as radical addresses and meetings from being given. A still broader line of attack was the charge that the Legion supported the social, economic, and political status quo in the United States. In at least one case, a critic argued that the Legion leadership systematically sold out the rank-and-file members by opposing many policies that would benefit ordinary citizens, including most veterans, and that in so doing worked with the most reactionary elements of the business community, notably the National Association of Manufacturers. For their part, Legionnaires could hardly have been disturbed by charges that they supported major U.S. institutions, because that was one of the major purposes of their organization. A few objective, academic studies of the Legion have been published, notably Littlewood’s Soldiers Back Home (2004) and Pencak’s For God & Country (1989). Pencak’s book is likely to remain the authoritative study for a long time. The Legion remains an attractive topic for study. During the past few years, a number of dissertations have discussed aspects of the organization. Among the subjects

68 |

American Legion

investigated have been the American Legion and Agent Orange, its efforts to promote participation in elections, and support for public education. Still another dissertation examined the Legion’s Junior Baseball organization. Opinions about the Legion continue to vary considerably in academic circles. Some authors of dissertations assert that the establishment of special benefits programs for veterans has undermined broader efforts at social and economic change, while others emphasize the opportunities that the Legion has provided through the GI Bill which opened higher education to previously underrepresented groups, particularly Jews and Catholics. Given the significance of the Legion in U.S. society, there is a need for further research. Additional studies of the Legion in particular states or regions would be welcome. Despite efforts to ensure consensus within the Legion nationally, there have been variations in state Legion organizations and probably within regions. There is an imperative need for examining the relationship between African Americans and the Legion, including connections between white and African American Legionnaires and their posts in the South during the segregation era. Another important topic is the participation of women in the Legion, both women veterans and the many women related to Legionnaires. The Legion Auxiliary has been one of the largest women’s organizations in the United States; yet, it continues to lack attention from researchers.

Conclusions There is unquestionably a need for an organization to remind the United States of the rights of its veterans, as frequent

complaints about conditions of veterans’ hospitals and mental health programs in the early-twenty-first century show. Despite considerable expenditures for veterans’ programs, politicians and governmental administrators have often failed to provide needed and even duly authorized assistance (see Veterans’ Hospitals; Veterans Administration; Department of Veterans Affairs; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; Gulf War Syndrome). Thus, the Legion and other veterans’ organizations have a legitimate role to play by continuing to insist on veterans programs that match the contributions of those veterans and that guarantee equitable treatment of their needs. Its nationalism notwithstanding, the Legion has generally operated within the confines of democracy and has championed democratic values. Veterans associations in a number of countries, notably Germany and Japan, went beyond nationalism during the interwar years to embrace and propagate imperialism in the worst senses of the concept. Initially, many of the Nazi Storm Troopers, for example, were World War I veterans. The supposedly nonpartisan Stahlhelm, which was composed entirely of German veterans, eventually linked hands with the Nazis and other extremists to help destroy the Weimar Republic. In a real sense, the American Legion can be seen as an extension of the services citizens have rendered while in the armed forces. Many Legionnaires have maintained that they have a special and continuing responsibility for protecting what they consider the political, economic, and social underpinnings of the United States. Although at one time, some Legionnaires damaged the credibility of the organization and, more importantly, infringed the

American Veterans Committee rights of many people by attacking ‘‘radicals’ ’’ right to speak freely, the Legion has contributed much to the United States by a wide variety of services to the community, especially to the nation’s youth, in addition to its commitment to veterans and their welfare. Despite the legitimate criticisms that have been leveled at the Legion for its transgressions during the first decades of its existence and despite the questionable positions it has taken on some issues, including immigration, the Legion overall has been a model veterans’ organization, which has influenced veterans’ associations in other democratic societies, such as the British Legion. The Legion has been a major component of the democratic system that served its members so well; its virtues, as well as its faults, have been those of traditional American conservatism. Benjamin R. Beede

Further Reading Baker, Roscoe. The American Legion and American Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974 (1954). Jones, Richard Seelye. A History of the American Legion. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1946. Littlewood, Thomas B. Soldiers Back Home: The American Legion in Illinois, 1919– 1939. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004. Pencak, William. For God & Country: The American Legion, 1919–1941. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1989 Rumer, Thomas A. The American Legion: An Official History 1919–1989. New York: M. Evans & Company, 1990. Upson, William Hazlett. Me and Henry and the Artillery. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1928.

| 69

AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE The American Veterans Committee (AVC) founded in 1944, was a radical departure from the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars which claimed the greatest percentage of World War II veterans as members. It was founded by collegeeducated men such as Charles Bolte´, a columnist for the New York Herald Tribune who had lost a leg at the battle of El Alamein. Other important members were Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. and Bill Mauldin, the war’s leading cartoonist. To distinguish itself from other groups, it not only espoused liberal politics, but implicitly criticized their demands for benefits for veterans by taking as its motto ‘‘Citizens First, Veterans Second.’’ Ideally, the AVC hoped to be exclusively a young, World War II veterans’ association so as not to fall under the control of the older, World War I veterans that dominated the existing societies. The AVC grew rapidly in its first few years, especially on college campuses which many veterans had been able to attend thanks to the GI Bill (see Servicemen’s Readjustment Act). Among its programs, besides veterans’ housing, restoration of prewar jobs, and decent benefits, were opposition to colonialism, support for the United Nations (to which it sent Bolte´ as an official delegate with the approval of the State Department), and opposition to racial discrimination. AVC members picketed real estate boards that red-lined districts to discriminate against black and Japanese Americans. The first national AVC convention, in Des Moines, Iowa, was marked by a seriousness that contrasted with the rowdy fun of the older veterans’ bodies.

70 |

American War Mothers

The AVC made an active effort to include blacks and women among its leadership. When it came to anti-Communism the AVC split, as did many American leftists. Some leaders strongly opposed the Communists in 1946 and 1947, most notably Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. who criticized their effects on the organization: ‘‘The Commies moved in, and from a flowering, inspiring group of young Americans, interested in their nation’s welfare, we have become a tattered and torn group. We are now bewildered and confused by the lies and tactics thrown at us by people who would not admit they were Communists but who at every turn of the road hewed to the Daily Worker line’’ (Tyler 1966, 428). The failure to make anti-Communism a priority, and the presence of Communists and Socialists in the ranks, led the elder veterans’ societies and William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers to charge the AVC with being under Communist influence. The AVC opposed legislation to ban the Communist party as ‘‘un-American’’ from elections and protested the House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigation of the motion picture industry as inquisitorial and violating the civil rights of those accused. But at the same time, to prove it was not Communist itself, in 1948 the AVC purged avowed Communist John Gates for ‘‘perjury’’ for failing to inform them that he belonged to the party. The AVC also ran into trouble that year as some of its members wanted to endorse liberal, former Vice President Henry Wallace for president on the American Labor Party, which contradicted the AVC’s constitutional requirement to remain nonpartisan. Richard Crohn of the Manhattan Chapter was suspended for publicly endorsing Wallace and the Labor Party on behalf of the AVC.

The AVC still exists, but has only about 15,000 members and a headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. It still supports veterans and social justice causes, but it has ceased to be influential since the split over Communism and the general decline of American leftism. William Pencak See also World War II Veterans

Further Reading Tyler, Robert L. ‘‘The American Veterans Committee: Out of a Hot War and Into the Cold.’’ American Quarterly 18 (1966): 419–36.

AMERICAN WAR MOTHERS One of the many significant roles women played on the home front during World War I was that of food conservation. Home gardens were planted throughout the United States and thrift was emphasized in the household. This sense of obligation that so many women shared throughout the war prompted the formation of the American War Mothers on September 19, 1917. Incorporated and chartered by Congress on February 24, 1925, membership was at first limited to mothers whose children had served honorably in World War I. The charter was amended during World War II to include mothers of children serving in that conflict, and, finally, modified to include mothers of children serving in Korea and all future wars. In addition to their dedication to veterans, American War Mothers have promoted patriotism throughout its existence. The association launched a

AMVETS campaign in 1925 to secure signatures for a petition to Congress, which would make the ‘‘Star Spangled Banner’’ the national anthem in 1931. They worked with the Battle Monuments Commission and traveled throughout Europe to dedicate cemeteries and memorials after both World Wars. The organization was also instrumental in bringing about the issuance of a Mother’s Day commemorative stamp on May 1, 1934. Mother’s Day ceremonies are held every year at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, Virginia (see Arlington National Cemetery). The American War Mother’s service flag flies beside the U.S. flag during these ceremonies. The flag, with a white background and red border, flies a blue star with the number 4,695,039 and a gold star with the number 60,672. The figures represent the number of U.S. service members in World War I and the number of fatalities, respectively. This flag is also flown over the U.S. Capitol Building every Veteran’s Day with the permission of the vice president. September 14, 1939 was declared ‘‘War Mothers Day’’ at the New York World’s Fair, and in July 2004 the U.S. Conference of Mayors recognized the American War Mothers as an indispensable veterans’ service organization. William Whyte III See also American Gold Star Mothers; Blue Star Mothers; World War I Veterans

Further Reading American War Mothers. www.americanwarmoms.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26. American War Mothers Collection. University of Nevada, Las Vegas Library, Special

| 71

Collections. www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/ ead/1997-17_AmerWarMothers.xml. Flags of the World. http://flagspot.net/flags/ us_awm.html. Home of Heroes. www.homeofheroes.com /hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfb_disp9 b.html.

AMVETS Originally an organization for veterans of World War II, AMVETS is a national service organization concerned with both veteran and community services. They are now open to all veterans as well as the National Guard and reservists. In 2009, the official membership was 260,000. Some veterans, especially the more educated and liberal, returning from World War II felt the older veteran organizations, primarily the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars were too far conservative and uncritically nationalistic, as well as removed from their experiences and needs. As a result, returning World War II Veterans began informally banding together, mainly at universities. By 1944, there were about 75 separate groups in 30 different states. Then located at George Washington University, the group decided it was time to organize nationally. They titled themselves American Veterans of World War II, Inc., and called for the separate groups to create a federation. Nine of the 75 groups agreed to meet, and they held a convention to discuss the future of the organizations in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 9, 1944. During the two-day convention, they formed their organization (dubbed AMVETS by the press) and created a constitution and bylaws. The first national commander

72 |

AMVETS

was Elmo W. Keel (1914–1969). Their initial goals, according to Albert C. Geremia (who was one of the 70 or so men at this first convention), were to work on membership, publicity, and the creation of a headquarters. Quickly, the first headquarters was set up in a Washington, DC, office with a single chair, one desk, and one borrowed typewriter. Despite these meager beginnings, by 1946 they had about 60,000 members; by 1948 they had more than 200,000. Early on the group was befriended by Eleanor Roosevelt and by then Congressman John F. Kennedy (who in 1948 served as AMVETS housing director). In 1947, Geremia related how his neighbor, Senator J. Howard McGrath (who had close ties to then President Harry S Truman) agreed to help in getting AMVETS officially recognized. As a result of this and lobbying by many AMVET members (especially Ray Sawyer, Elliot Newcomb, and Clarence Adamy), the group was chartered by Congress on July 23, 1947. The charter was then amended in 1950 to allow membership to veterans of Korea, in 1966 to allow Vietnam veterans, and in 1984 to allow any veteran who had been on active duty after September 15, 1940. In 1990 it allowed membership to National Guard members and reservists. The same year that John F. Kennedy served as housing director, future Secretary of State Dean Rusk chaired the International Affairs Committee and Edmund Muskie, future senator from Maine, was the national executive director. Another famous member of AMVETS was national commander Harold Russell, a disabled veteran who was the only person ever to win two Oscars for a role in one movie, The Best Years of Our Lives (1946). AMVETS

has its own Silver Helmet Award for great American role models. Over the years, AMVETS has sponsored football bowl games like the Delta Bowl in 1949 (Oklahoma A&M versus William & Mary), built an AMVETS memorial carillon, or belltower, at Arlington National Cemetery, and went on through its carillon program to build similar memorials at Golden Gate National Cemetery, Camp Butler, Illinois, Jefferson Barracks, Montana, the Harry S Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, the Hoover Library, the John F. Kennedy Library, the Eisenhower Library, Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, and many others. AMVETS also contributed $100,000 in 1986 to help restore the Statue of Liberty. In terms of memorials that AMVETS has sponsored, the most moving is perhaps the USS Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor. In addition to a carillon on the platform above the Arizona, AMVETS raised $15,000 for the engraving of the name of the 1,177 people who rest in underwater graves. They also helped— along with many others—to raise the rest of the money needed to complete the memorial. Over the years, AMVETS has lobbied for veterans, arguing for veterans entitlements and for creating the cabinet level Department of Veteran Affairs. It has lobbied for antiballistic missile systems and participated in an education program entitled AMVETS Against Drug and Alcohol Abuse. Thousand of AMVETS members have volunteered their time at veterans’ hospitals. One of its biggest outreach programs is called Americanism, a program for children in grades K through 12. It teaches American heritage, civics, and citizenship, a liberal alternative to the programs of the American

Anti-War Veterans Associations Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Unlike these two organizations, AMVETS strongly supported desegregation of the armed forces, which finally occurred in 1948. That year, AMVETS supported the World Veterans Foundation in an attempt to promote world peace. Today, AMVETS sponsors ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) programs and the Boy Scouts; ceremonial honor guards for events such as funerals; a veterans’ history program; housing for homeless veterans; scholarships to students; and free counseling on compensation claims. It participates in the Armed Services Blood Program, the Freedom Foundation Youth Leadership Conference, and engages with passion in the Healing Heroes Program (see also Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations). In addition to the main veterans’ organization, AMVETS has several auxiliary organizations. These include the Sad Sacks, the Sackettes, the Ladies Auxiliary (who, aside from other services, spend over 250,000 hours volunteering in VA hospitals), the National Sons of AMVETS, and Junior AMVETS (for children between the ages of 5 and 17). Starting out as isolated groups of kindred souls, home from the Second World War, AMVETS has grown in numbers from a brotherhood of 70 or so veterans to an organization of over 200,000. It has also, through the years, grown in the scope of its services to community and veterans. It has promoted patriotism and clean living for America’s youth and provided direction and scholarships to them. AMVETS has comforted the sick and by burying the dead it remembers the sacrifices of veterans through the creation of memorials and history projects. A small but select group of veterans, AMVETS successfully

| 73

practices its motto: ‘‘Veterans helping veterans.’’ William P. Toth

Further Reading AMVETS National Headquarters. www.amvets.org. Flanagan, Richard W., ed. AMVETS: 50 Years of Proud Service to America’s Veterans. Lanham, MD: AMVETS National Headquarters, 1994.

ANTI-WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATIONS There are several organizations that question the use of U.S. armed forces to intervene in foreign countries. The Vietnam Veterans Against the War is the oldest such organization in the United States. Still a functioning entity in 2009, it works with several other anti-war organizations that have formed since then. All of these societies have similar programs: increased benefits for veterans, with special attention to refurbishing the veterans’ hospital system and especially increasing services for veterans and soldiers with psychological problems. The high suicide rate for Iraq War veterans is of special concern. These organizations offer support for veterans and their families and try to make them aware of the benefits available to them. Anti-war associations also attempt to educate the public through print, public forums, and demonstrations. Through these outlets, they question official government reports about the purpose and success of the wars in question, as well as the manner (with respect to torture and damage to civilians) in which those wars have been conducted.

74 |

Anti-War Veterans Associations

Iraq Veterans Against the War join thousands in a march and rally against the Iraq war in downtown Los Angeles, 2007. [AP Photo/Reed Saxon]

The Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, which now sponsors Veterans for America, also dates from the Vietnam era. It is most famous for its international campaign against land mines, which in 1987 won the Nobel Peace Prize. Its projects include (1) Wounded Warrior Outreach, where members offer counseling and support to veterans and soldiers who have been serving; (2) the National Guard Program, which investigates how deployment of the Guard in Iraq has weakened it to the point where its ability to deal with security threats and emergencies in the United States has been jeopardized. Its investigations have offered specific suggestions for states to restore their National Guards to proper strength; (3) The American Veterans

and Servicemembers’ Survivors Guide, which is available on their Web site (www.veteransforamerica.org). Founded in 1985, Veterans for Peace is composed of veterans of all American wars and welcomes as well veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who fought against fascism in Spain between 1936 and 1939. It began by opposing U.S. intervention in Central America. Since then it has investigated possible atrocities that have occurred during wars (including the ‘‘war on drugs’’ in Colombia and the Korean War), protested damage to the civilian population caused by weapons testing in Puerto Rico, marched annually for the closing of the ‘‘School of the Americas’’ in Fort Benning, Georgia, where the Latin American military is trained to suppress disorder, and worked, as it does currently, to reconcile

Arlington National Cemetery | 75 Vietnamese and American veterans of the Vietnam War. It is officially represented at the United Nations as a NonGovernmental Organization. Veterans for Common Sense, founded in 2002, takes its name from Thomas Paine’s pamphlet ‘‘Common Sense,’’ which inspired many Americans to fight the War for Independence. It focuses on civil liberties and has filed lawsuits asking for release of all documents relating to interrogation and possible torture of prisoners in the Iraq War and at Guantanamo Bay. It also supports energy policies that reduce dependence on oil. Iraq Veterans Against the War was founded in 2004 and is composed exclusively of Iraq War veterans. Veterans Against the Iraq War is similar in purpose and activities to the Iraq Veterans Against the War and works with that group, but membership includes veterans of former wars as well as the current conflict. It demands the immediate removal of all troops from Iraq and reparations to the Iraqi people for damages inflicted by the U.S. military. It also provides information concerning benefits, counseling, and health care to veterans. Three features of its efforts are ‘‘Truth in Recruiting,’’ which attempts to show recruits that they will probably serve in Iraq and that promises made by recruiting officers about training and benefits are not always fulfilled; both moral and legal support for service personnel who refuse to fight in the war; and continuing the Winter Soldier Investigation, modeled after the investigation of the same name, was begun by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Veterans, along with scholars, journalists, and others, speak throughout the nation to tell their

stories and question the official government line about the war. William Pencak

Further Reading Iraq Veterans Against the War. www.ivaw.org. Veterans Against the Iraq War. www.vaiw.org. Veterans for Common Sense. www.veteransforcommonsense.org. Veterans for Peace. www.veteransforpeace.org.

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY Although Arlington National Cemetery started as a burial ground for the dead of the American Civil War, gradually those from other wars were buried at the cemetery, with some of the U.S. military dead from wars before 1861 being reinterred after 1900. There are set criteria for people to be interred at Arlington—they may either be buried in a casket or have their ashes placed in an urn. Burials are reserved (with few exceptions) for any active duty member of the armed forces (excepting those serving on active duty for training only); veterans retired from active service; veterans retired from the reserves upon attaining the age of 60 who have completed a period of active service (other than for training); and any former member of the armed forces prior to October 1, 1949, honorably discharged for medical reasons with at least a 30 percent disability rating. In addition, graves may be provided for any president of the United States or former president, and any former member of the armed forces who has held elected

76 |

Arlington National Cemetery

office in the U.S. government, served on the U.S. Supreme Court, or was a chief of mission overseas. Former members of the armed forces can also be buried at Arlington National Cemetery if they received any of the following decorations: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, or Purple Heart; and also any former prisoners of war as of November 30, 1993. In all cases, for all former members of the armed forces, their last period of service had to have ended honorably. As well as service personnel, spouses, widows, widowers, minor children, permanently dependent children, and some unmarried adult children of eligible veterans may also be buried at Arlington. Widows and widowers of members of the armed forces who were lost or buried at sea, determined to be missing in action, or belong to a group with a plot at Arlington or at a U.S. military cemetery overseas which is maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission, may be buried there. The inscriptions on the tombstones must be no longer than 12 lines, with a maximum of 15 characters per line. Some 38 symbols have been authorized denoting whether the person buried was a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist.

The Civil War Era: 1864–1898 Arlington National Cemetery, located in Arlington, Virginia, is a large U.S. military cemetery established during the American Civil War on land formerly owned by the family of Robert E. Lee. Officially established on June 15, 1864, it covers about 624 acres, and has about

245,000 graves. It now includes the graves of veterans of every conflict in which the United States has been involved and is a regular place of pilgrimage for many people with relatives buried there, and also others wishing to honor American veterans. Although there are other U.S. military cemeteries around the country, and indeed overseas, the Arlington National Cemetery has a special place in the memory of U.S. veterans. Located across the Potomac River, close to Washington, DC, it is also near the Pentagon. Arlington is situated on land that once belonged to Mary Anna Custis Lee (1807–1873), the wife of Confederate General Robert E. Lee (1807– 1870). Before that, it had belonged to her father George Washington Parke Custis (1781–1857), the adopted son (and also step-grandson) of President George Washington. In 1779 Custis’s father John Parke Custis bought the 445 hectare property which he named after the family’s former home on the eastern shore of Virginia. The house itself was considerably enlarged from 1802 to 1804 by George Hadfield, the English architect who designed the U.S. Capitol. In 1789 the whole of Arlington County (then called Alexandria County) was ceded by Virginia to form a part of the District of Columbia, but it was returned in 1846. Robert E. Lee and Mary Custis were married in 1831 at Arlington and had seven children, six born at Arlington. When Robert was in the Engineer Department in Washington, and later posted to St. Louis and then to the Mexican War, Mary Lee remained with the children at Arlington. On October 10, 1857, George Washington Parke Custis died at Arlington House. Robert E. Lee

Arlington National Cemetery | 77 went on leave to sort out the complicated estate and problems over Custis’s will, one of which centered on his desire to free all his slaves. Custis had left Arlington to his daughter, and then to her oldest son, George Washington Custis Lee. Robert E. Lee was still there in October 1859 when he was chosen to suppress John Brown’s attempted slave insurrection at Harpers Ferry. Lee captured Brown, who was later executed. To try to get a break from the exasperating legal problems generated by Custis’s will, Lee went to Texas, and in February 1861 he returned to Arlington as secession started. He rejected an offer by Abraham Lincoln to lead the U.S. Army, and on April 20, 1861, he resigned his commission, considering his main allegiance to Virginia. Three days later he accepted command of the armed forces of Virginia, later becoming commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and the leading Confederate general. With the war’s outbreak and the unprecedented number of people killed, the military cemeteries at Washington and also at Alexandria rapidly became full. This led to the Quartermaster General Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (1816–1892) proposing the use of 200 acres of the land at Arlington as a cemetery, with the first people being buried there soon afterward. Indeed the first 26 were buried in the former rose garden near the front door of the mansion. Many on the Union side felt that the appropriation of Lee’s land as a graveyard was justified because he had sided with the Confederacy. Although Meigs had been born in Georgia, he had grown up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at the start of the American Civil War had been charged, by Abraham Lincoln, with a secret mission to save a federal base in

Florida. On May 14, 1861, he was appointed as colonel, and on the following day as quartermaster general. As well as suggesting the use of Arlington, Meigs also helped with supplying many Union armies, including that of General William T. Sherman. Meigs detested slavery and the Confederacy, and his choice of Arlington for the cemetery may well have been due to his personal hatred against Lee, whom he had worked alongside earlier. He wanted to make sure the Lees could never live in their house again. The first burial at Arlington was that of William Henry Christman, of the 67th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment. He was from Lehigh County and was a laborer before joining the Union forces. Christman died from peritonitis and was buried on Friday, May 13, 1864. Another man was buried later that same day, six the following Saturday, and seven on Sunday. The nation’s first monument to its unknown soldiers was dedicated in what used to be Lee’s rose garden in September 1866. It stands atop a masonry vault containing the remains of 2,111 soldiers gathered from the fields of Bull Run and the route to the Rappahannock. It is therefore inevitable that some Confederate, as well as Union, soldiers are buried in this vault. By the end of the war, there were approximately 16,000 people buried at Arlington. One of those, First Lieutenant John Rodgers Meigs, who had been killed at Swift Run Gap in Virginia in October 1864, was the son of Montgomery C. Meigs. After the war, Robert E. Lee was not able to make claim to the land on behalf of his wife—indeed he never returned to the property. His wife did come back to Arlington just before her death, but was so upset by the

78 |

Arlington National Cemetery

The first tomb for an Unknown Soldier was placed in Arlington Cemetery in 1866 to honor Union veterans of the Civil War. [National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-npcc-00017]

graves that she was unable to enter the house. The Lees’ oldest son, George Washington Custis Lee (1832–1913), president of Washington and Lee University, claimed that he owned the land and took his case to the Supreme Court which eventually, in 1882, ruled in his favor. Congress paid $150,000 (half of what Lee had asked for) for the title to the land. Initially only some of the land at Arlington was needed for the cemetery. On December 4, 1863, the U.S. government decided to establish Freedman’s Village, where about 1,100 freed slaves were given land for them to farm during the latter period of the Civil War. It took

a few years before many war veterans started to view Arlington as their final resting place. In September 1869, John Aaron Rawlins, a Democratic politician who had supported Stephen Douglas for president in 1860, and then served as a general in the Union forces, being appointed as Secretary of War to Ulysses S. Grant in March 1869, died and was buried at Arlington. Wlodzimierz B. Krzyzanowski, a veteran of the Polish Uprising in 1846, moved to the United States and was appointed an officer in the Union army, later working in the customs service in Panama and New York City. He died in 1887 and was buried at Arlington as well. The following year

Arlington National Cemetery | 79 Philip H. Sheridan, ‘‘Little Phil’’ who had led a raid into Northern Virginia in February 1865, was also buried at Arlington. After the Civil War he had been an observer with the Prussian Army in the Franco-Prussian War, succeeding General Sherman as commander in chief of the U.S. Army in 1884. In 1890, with the government anticipating more burials at Arlington, Freedman’s Village was closed down and the former slaves removed. Two years later Montgomery Meigs, the man who had suggested the location of the cemetery, was himself buried at Arlington after his death on January 2, 1892. His burial, with high military honors, took place at a grave located close to the Rose Garden near where his son was buried. The next famous burial at Arlington was that of Abner Doubleday (1819– 1893) who served in Mexico and then as a general in the American Civil War; but he is best known for the claim that he invented baseball.

The Spanish-American War and World War I Eras Following the Spanish-American War, Arlington National Cemetery once again became a place for national focusing of grief. In 1906 Major General Joseph Wheeler was buried there. He had fought the Indians prior to the Civil War and then served as a general in the Confederate Army, later becoming a major general in the U.S. Army serving in Cuba and in the Philippines. Two years later, in 1908, Thomas Selfridge was buried at Arlington. He was a First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and was the first person to die in a powered airplane crash when he took a plane for a trial flight with Orville

Wright. Thomas Crook Sullivan (1833– 1908) became the first person to be buried in a mausoleum at Arlington; and 17 years later Civil War and SpanishAmerican War veteran General Nelson A. Miles was interred in the only other mausoleum in the entire cemetery. The joint effort made by exConfederates and ex-Union soldiers in the Spanish-American War led Southerners to propose a Congressional resolution allocating part of Arlington Cemetery for deceased Confederates. Those 482 exConfederates buried in the national cemeteries in Alexandria and at the Soldiers’ Home in Washington were reinterred in concentric circles. At their center was later placed the Confederate Monument, its cornerstone laid in 1912 with a speech given by Union veteran James A. Tanner, the current commander of the Grand Army of the Republic who had lost both his legs nearby at the Second Battle of Bull Run. Designed by Moses Ezekiel, himself a Confederate veteran who was later buried at its foot, the monument is crowned by a statue symbolizing the South. The complicated imagery on the monument offers a very pro-Southern interpretation of the war. A figure of Minerva, the Roman Goddess of Wisdom, rests on her shield that symbolizes the Constitution of the United States. Fourteen, rather than thirteen, states are shown supporting the South, as Maryland is included along with those that seceded. Scenes of life during the war include two faithful slaves: one following his master to war, another holding an officer’s child. In 1909, the body of Pierre Charles L’Enfant (1754–1825), the architect who had laid out the city of Washington, was buried at Arlington; and three years later, he was joined by General Philip

80 |

Arlington National Cemetery

Kearney (1815–1862) who conquered California in the Mexican War and who had previously been buried at Trinity Churchyard, New York. In March 1914, George Westinghouse, a veteran of the New York Cavalry in the Civil War, and subsequently an important inventor and founder of the Westinghouse Electric Company, was buried at Arlington. By this period, with many people visiting Arlington, there was a campaign by Ivory G. Kimball (1843–1916), a judge later himself buried at Arlington, and others, to have a place where people could commemorate the sacrifices of all U.S. service personnel. This led to Congress authorizing, on March 4, 1913, the building of the Arlington Memorial Amphitheater which would host state funerals and ceremonies held on Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Built largely from Imperial Danby marble, brought from Vermont, it would later incorporate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers, made from Botticino stone brought from Italy, befitting its neoclassical design. On October 15, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson laid the cornerstone of the building. The stone contained in it a copy of the U.S. Constitution, a Bible, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the current U.S. flag, each of the coins and postage stamps in use that year, a Congressional directory, a directory of the District of Columbia, an autographed photograph of President Wilson, and various items connected with the cemetery. Only 18 months after Wilson had laid the cornerstone, the United States found itself in another major war following its declaration of war on Germany on April 6, 1917. Unlike the countries of the British Empire in World War I, the U.S.

government agreed to allow the repatriation of bodies of service personnel killed overseas. One of these was that of Bertram Tracy Clayton, a former U.S. congressman from New York who had served in the Canal Zone before going to France where he died on May 30, 1918. In the following year, Jane Delano (1862–1919), the director of the Army Nursing Corps, died, and was buried at Arlington. At the end of World War I, some European countries had established graves of ‘‘Unknown Soldiers’’ where all the relatives and friends of people who died in the war could commemorate the sacrifices of service personnel who had no known grave. The Tomb of the Unknown Warrior of World War I followed an interment at Arlington on November 11, 1921, with President Warren G. Harding presiding. On March 4, 1921, by an act of the U.S. Congress, the British Unknown Soldier was awarded, posthumously, a Congressional Medal of Honor. The British Cabinet, after meeting on October 26, 1921, then approved the awarding of a posthumous Victoria Cross to the Unknown Warrior of the United States. The medal itself was taken by diplomatic pouch on the HMS Eurydice, to the United States, and formally presented at Arlington National Cemetery on November 11, 1921, by Vice Admiral of the Fleet Lord Beatty, representing King George V. Now known as the Tomb of the Unknowns, anonymous veterans from World War II and the Korean War were laid to rest on Memorial Day 1958. A Vietnam veteran was interred by President Ronald Reagan on Memorial Day 1984, but since he was identified and reburied in 1998, the Vietnam vault has remained empty and bears the words, ‘‘Honoring and Keeping Faith with

Arlington National Cemetery | 81

President Warren G. Harding dedicates the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, 1921. [Courtesy of the Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-91972]

America’s Missing Servicemen.’’ The Tomb has been guarded night and day by a sentry since July 2, 1937. In recent years, cracks and wear have caused Congress to debate whether to replace or repair the memorial. In 1922, Charles Young, the first African American lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was buried at Arlington; three years later followed the famous orator William Jennings Bryan, three times a candidate in U.S. presidential elections, and the secretary of state under Woodrow Wilson. A colonel in the Spanish-American War, he had resigned his cabinet position in June 1915 over the U.S. government’s second note to Germany condemning the sinking of the Lusitania and had also taken part in the prosecution at the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1926, Robert

Todd Lincoln, the son of Abraham Lincoln, a captain in the last period of the Civil War, and secretary of war under Garfield and Arthur in 1881–1885, was also buried at Arlington. Also noteworthy is James Parks (1843–1929), a former slave who lived at Freedman’s Village and the only person buried at Arlington who was also born its grounds. The first state funeral held at Arlington National Cemetery took place on March 11, 1930, when William Howard Taft, the 27th president of the United States, later serving as chief justice, was buried. He died from heart disease on March 8 and a memorial service was held at All Souls Unitarian Church in Washington, DC. It was a relatively simple service, with no eulogy. The Reverend Ulysses Grant Pierce read some of Taft’s favorite poems, with an organist playing

82 |

Arlington National Cemetery

some hymns. After this, a hearse carried Taft’s coffin to Arlington in a procession that included 120 cars, with a truck carrying the flowers. At Arlington, a thousand soldiers presented arms to honor their former commander in chief, and after the bugler, the 23rd Psalm was read before Taft was buried, a tall granite monument marking the spot. Mrs. Helen Taft, the president’s widow, died on May 22, 1943, and she was buried with her husband. In 1908, when Taft was the secretary of war, he passed over Douglas MacArthur for the position of chief of staff, leading to MacArthur telling his mother that he did not want to be buried at Arlington, nor have a funeral with military honors. In the year after Taft’s funeral, 1931, the focus of the nation was once again on Arlington, when Clarence Ransom Edwards (1860–1931), the commander of the 26th ‘‘Yankee’’ Division in World War I, was buried. Eight years later, John Roy Lynch (1847–1939), a former slave, and later an African American politician, a major in the U.S. Army, and a Republican member of the U.S. Congress, was buried at Arlington, after his death in Chicago. In 1940, Major General Omar Bundy, the commander of the 1st Brigade of the 1st Expeditionary Division in France in World War I, was buried at the cemetery.

World War II to the Present With the United States entering World War II on December 7, 1941, once again the focus of the nation turned to the sacrifice of more soldiers in war. By this time the position of Arlington as the premier veterans’ cemetery was firmly etched in public minds. Earlier

that year Ignance Jan Paderewski, the pianist who had served as Poland’s prime minister in 1919 and who was president of the Polish Provisional Parliament after his country was occupied by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, died in New York City. He was buried at Arlington prior to being reinterred in 1992 at St. John’s Cathedral, Warsaw, after the fall of Communism. Manuel Quezon, the president of the Philippines, also forced to flee his country following the Japanese invasion, died in 1944 at Saranac Lake, New York, and his body was also temporarily interred at Arlington. He was reinterred at Manila North Cemetery in the Philippines and finally moved to the Quezon Memorial Circle. The journey of Quezon’s remains reversed those of General Douglas MacArthur’s mother, who had died and been buried in Manila in 1935, and was later reinterred at Arlington alongside her husband. Arthur MacArthur was a U. S. army general who directed the suppression of the Philippine Insurrection following the Spanish-American War. In November 1944 Sir John Dill, the British chief of the Imperial General Staff in the early part of World War II, and then from 1941 the head of the British joint staff mission to the United States, died in Washington, DC, and was buried at Arlington. The next year, the burials included Dwight F. Davis, the secretary of war from 1925 until 1929, but more famous as the donor of the Davis Cup for lawn tennis in 1900. In 1947, the body of the British war hero from Burma (now Myanmar) and Zionist leader, Orde Charles Wingate, was interred at Arlington—he had died in a plane crash on March 24, 1944.

Arlington National Cemetery | 83 From April 6, 1948, the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington was guarded by the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment. Three months later, General John J. Pershing who had commanded the American Expeditionary Force in Europe in World War I, was buried after a state funeral at Arlington. He had, apparently, planned his own funeral, keeping the details in a Pentagon file marked ‘‘Top Secret.’’ In 1949, the body of Michael Strank, a member of the U.S. Marines, and one of the six servicemen who appeared in Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph ‘‘Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima,’’ was brought from the Marine Cemetery at Iwo Jima and reinterred at Arlington. Six years later, the body of Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian from Arizona who had also appeared in the same photograph, was buried at Arlington, as was a third of the servicemen, Rene Gagnon (see Iwo Jima Memorial). ‘‘Hap’’ Arnold (1886–1950), the first general of the U.S. Air Force was buried at Arlington when he died in 1950. In 1951 John C. Metzler (1909–1990), a sergeant in World War II, became the superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, a position he held until 1982. During this time—he was later buried at Arlington himself—the first major funeral was that of Major General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright IV, the hero of Bataan and Corregidor in the Philippines, and the highest-ranking U.S. prisoner of war in World War II (see American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor). Miles Browning (1897– 1954), who had served in the U.S. Navy in World War I and is regarded as the hero of the Battle of Midway from June 3–6, 1942, was also buried at Arlington, as was Louis Cukela (1888– 1956), a major in the Marine Corps who

had been awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor for the same act in World War I. It was not until 1958 that the bodies of the Unknown Soldiers of World War II and the Korean War were interred at Arlington, with President Dwight D. Eisenhower presiding. The ceremony took place on May 30 with Vice President Richard Nixon acting as the next of kin for the Korean War soldier. Claire Chennault (1890–1958), the major general who commanded the U.S. Army Air Forces in China, was buried two months later; and six months later, William ‘‘Wild Bill’’ J. Donovan, the director of the Office of Strategic Services (precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency), was also interred. He was followed three months later by John Foster Dulles, the Cold War warrior and secretary of state from 1953 until his death in 1959. Three months after Dulles’s funeral, World War II Admiral William F. ‘‘Bull’’ Halsey was buried at Arlington. In January 1961, detective story writer Dashiell Hammett died in New York City, and because of his services in World Wars I and II, he was be buried in Arlington. This was controversial as he had been jailed in 1951 for refusing to name contributors to the bail bond fund for the Civil Rights Congress (accused of being a Communist front) of which he was a trustee. In June 1963 Medgar Evers, a civil rights activist who had served in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II, was killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He was murdered distributing civil rights t-shirts and was buried with full military honors at Arlington. Only hours before his murder, he had been listening to President John F. Kennedy describe the bill he was sending to

84 |

Arlington National Cemetery

Congress which was to become the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kennedy, the first Roman Catholic to become U.S. president and the first president born in the twentieth century, was buried at Arlington on November 25, 1963, following one of the largest funerals in Washington, DC. Some 250,000 people passed by Kennedy’s coffin, and 1,000 guests attended the service at St. Matthew’s Cathedral, after which the funeral cortege left for Arlington with Kennedy’s horse ‘‘Black Jack’’ with the president’s boots reversed in his stirrups, following behind. It was the fourth state funeral, the other two being for President Taft (1930) and the Unknown Soldiers of World War II and the Korean Wars (1958), held at Arlington. John F. Kennedy Jr., who had turned three that morning, saluted the casket with 50 air force jets and Air Force One flying over the service. An eternal flame at the grave was lit by John F. Kennedy’s wife, Jacqueline, her brothers-in-law Robert and Ted near her. Robert himself was buried at Arlington after his assassination in 1968. Jacqueline Kennedy (Onassis) was buried next to her first husband when she died in 1994. The eternal flame is now visited by many people who go to Arlington, and in the Oliver Stone film JFK (1991), Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Costner, gets reassurance at the flame for his investigations into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. By the 1960s, it became apparent that the land at Arlington was filling up, and Metzler, the superintendent in 1966, added another 190 acres to the original 200 acres. He also organized the system of burying veterans and their spouses in the same plot, one above the other. In 1965, burials at Arlington included Larry Thorne, a Finnish soldier who had

served in the U.S. Special Forces and fought for the Finnish, German, and U.S. armed forces, and James Jabara, the first U.S. jet ace in history, credited with shooting down 15 enemy aircraft in the Korean War. In 1967, Roger Chaffee and Gus Grissom, astronauts killed in the fire on Apollo 1, were also buried at Arlington, as was, many years later, Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Jr. (1930– 1999), the third astronaut to walk on the moon. Other notable interments of this period include those of Clark H. Woodward (1877–1968), a vice admiral who had served in five wars (SpanishAmerican War, Philippine-American War, Boxer Uprising, World War I, and World War II); Hugo Black (1886– 1971), a justice of the Supreme Court from 1937 until 1971; Audie Murphy, the most decorated U.S. combat soldier from World War II and the recipient of 28 medals including the Medal of Honor and three purple hearts; Gordon Beecher (1904–1973), a vice admiral in the U.S. Navy and a composer; Frank Kowalski (1907–1974) who had served in World War II and the occupation forces in Japan; and General Creighton Abrams (1914–1974) who commanded U.S. operations in the Vietnam War from 1968 until 1972, and after whom the Abrams tank is named. Gary Powers, the U-2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960, was buried at Arlington when he died in 1977, as was Daniel ‘‘Chappie’’ James Jr., the first African American four-star general in the U.S. armed forces in 1978. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (1898– 1980); Omar N. Bradley (1893–1981), the first chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff; and the boxer Joe Louis

Arlington National Cemetery | 85 (1914–1981) were buried at Arlington during the early 1980s. Although the Vietnam War had ended in 1975, it was not until May 28, 1984, that the Unknown Soldier of the Vietnam War was interred with President Ronald Reagan presiding. However, the body was disinterred on May 14, 1998, with the approval of President Bill Clinton, and determined to be that of First Lieutenant Michael J. Blassie. His body was reburied at St. Louis, Missouri, and it was determined that the crypt for the Unknown Soldier of the Vietnam War would remain empty. Alfred C. Richmond (1902–1984), commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, and Potter Stewart (1915–1985) of the U.S. Supreme Court were both buried at Arlington soon afterwards, as were Hyman G. Rickover (1900–1986), the ‘‘Father of the U.S. nuclear navy,’’ Lee Marvin (1924– 1987), the former marine who starred in many war films, and Gregory ‘‘Pappy’’ Boyington (1912–1988), a World War II Marine Corps fighter ace who commanded the famous ‘‘Black Sheep Squadron’’ which formed the basis for the 1970s television series Baa Baa Black Sheep. On May 20, 1986, a private ceremony was held at Arlington where the remains from the space shuttle Challenger were buried in a single common grave to commemorate the deaths of the seven astronauts on board on January 28, although the remains identified as being those of Christa McAuliffe, the school teacher on the flight, were buried at Calvary Cemetery, Concord, New Hampshire. Other identified remains of Dick Scobee and Michael J. Smith were buried in separate plots in Arlington. A memorial was erected on February 1, 2004, to commemorate the dead on the space shuttle

Columbia which had broken apart on reentry into the atmosphere exactly a year earlier, with three of the astronauts, Laurel Clark, David Brown, and Michael Anderson having separate plots in Arlington. Mention should also be made of the cairn for the Lockerbie Memorial commemorating the 270 people killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Some 189 of the 259 killed in the plane were Americans. In 1991 John C. Metzler Jr. was appointed as the superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, nine years after his father had retired from the same position and one year after his father’s death. The younger Metzler had served in an army helicopter crew in Vietnam. One of his early high profile ceremonies was the placing of a memorial stone for the popular singer Glenn Miller (1904– 1944), who was lost during World War II when the plane on which he was traveling was lost somewhere over the English Channel. As he had been serving with the U.S. forces, his name was initially included at the Wall of the Missing at the War Memorial at Madingley, Cambridgeshire, England. In 1992 his daughter’s request was granted and a stone was placed at Arlington to commemorate his life. Over the next few years interments took place for Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1906– 1992), a pioneer computer scientist; Thurgood Marshall (1908–1993), the first African American Supreme Court Justice; Kara Spears Hultgreem (1965– 1994), the first female naval carrierbased fighter pilot; Colonel Matt Urban (1919–1995), the most highly decorated soldier for valor in U.S. history; Admiral Jeremy Michael ‘‘Mike’’ Boorda (1939– 1996), the chief of Naval Operations from 1994 until 1996; Captain David

86 |

Arlington National Cemetery

McCampbell (1910–1996), the U.S. Navy’s top World War II ace, with 34 ‘‘kills’’; Ron Brown (1941–1996), the secretary of commerce from 1993 until his death, who had served as a captain in the U.S. Army; and William J. Brennan Jr. (1906–1997), a Supreme Court justice. Although the war in Vietnam had been commemorated, there had long been a campaign to officially recognize the U.S. and Laotian Hmong veterans who had served in the ‘‘Secret War’’ in Laos. This led to an official acknowledgement of the war on May 15, 1997, the Laos Memorial being built on the path between the Tomb of the Unknowns and John F. Kennedy’s eternal flame. On October 18, 1997, the Women’s Veterans Memorial opened at the former site of the hemicycle, the ceremonial entrance to the cemetery. The American Veterans Committee proposed the project in 1982 and Congress approved it unanimously in 1986. In 1989, the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation selected the winning design, ‘‘The Candles,’’ by Marion Gail Weiss and Michael Manfredi. As modified, it consists of clear glass tablets inscribed with quotations by or about women in the military. These are reflected onto the marble wall of the memorial. There is also an education center that provides access to information about the over two million women who have served in the U.S. armed forces. A Hall of Honor lists the names of women who have died in the line of duty. The foundation accepts artifacts and documents related to women in the military and publishes books dealing with the women’s military experiences. The man who had initially supported the Vietnam War, and then persuaded

Lyndon Johnson to change his course, Washington ‘‘mandarin’’ Clark Clifford, was buried at Arlington in October 1998. Other recent burials have included those of Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun (1908–1999); longtime U.S. Senator Mike Mansfield (1903– 2001); Colonel Ruby Bradley (1907– 2002), the most decorated woman in U.S. military history; Lieutenant Colonel Robert Webb (1922–2002), a pilot of the B-17 Flying Fortress in World War II; the political cartoonist Bill Mauldin (1921–2003), who served in World War II; Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927–2003), the longtime U.S. senator from New York; George S. Patton IV (1923–2004), the son of the World War II general; David H. Hackworth (1930–2005), the U.S. soldier to receive the most medals; Mark Matthews (1894–2005), the last surviving member of the African Americans who had fought in segregated units, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, who had fought against the Apache, the Spanish, and the Mexicans; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (1924–2005); and Leslie Sherman, a Virginia Tech student killed in the mass shooting on April 16, 2007 —Sherman could be buried in Arlington because her mother is a veteran who plans to be buried beside her. There have also been a number of memorials erected at Arlington to Americans killed in terrorist attacks around the world. These include Bill Buckley (1928–1985), the CIA station chief in Beirut who was captured, tortured, and murdered by Hezbollah; and Julian Bartley Sr., and his son Jay Bartley, who were both killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998. There is also the Pentagon Memorial, commemorating the 184 people who died on

Armistice Day September 11, 2001, when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Finally, Private Francis Lupo (1895–1918), who was killed in France in World War I and whose body was recovered and identified in 2003, was interred at Arlington, making him, to date, the U.S. service member who has been listed as missing in action for the longest time before his body was found. It has been estimated that about one in ten of the soldiers killed in Iraq have been buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Justin Corfield

Further Reading Andrews, Owen, and Cameron Davidson. Arlington National Cemetery: A Moment of Silence. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation Press, 1994. Ashabranner, Brent. A Grateful Nation: The Story of the Arlington National Cemetery. New York: Philomel Books, 1990. Atkinson, Rick. ‘‘Arlington: The Nation’s Cemetery.’’ The National Geographic Magazine 211, no. 6 (June 2007): 118–37. Bellafaire, Judith Lawrence. ‘‘Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation (WIMSA).’’ In Gender Camouflage: Women and the U. S.

| 87

Military, edited by Francine D’Amico and Laurie Weinstein, 176–81. New York: New York University Press, 1997. Benoit, Tod. Where Are They Buried? How Did They die? New York: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2003. Bigler, Philip. In Honored Glory: Arlington National Cemetery—The Final Post Arlington, VA: Vandamere Press, 1999. Bowie, Beverley M. ‘‘Known But to God.’’ The National Geographic Magazine 114, no. 5 (November 1958): 593–605. Chase, Enoch A. ‘‘Fame’s Eternal Camping Ground: Beautiful Arlington, Burial Place of America’s Illustrious Dead.’’ The National Geographic Magazine 54, no. 5 (November 1928): 621–38. Lamb, Brian, et al. Who’s Buried in Grant’s Tomb? A Tour of Presidential Gravesites. Washington, DC: National Cable Satellite Corporation, 2000. Peters, James E. Arlington National Cemetery: Shrine to America’s Heroes. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House, 1986. Stein, R. Conrad. Arlington National Cemetery. Chicago: Children’s Press, 1996.

ARMISTICE DAY See Veterans Day

This page intentionally left blank

B by civilians and limited to preserving and memorializing only the positions held by Union forces. By the 1880s, however, the Pennsylvania Grand Army of the Republic had come to control the battlefield, which was frequently used as a site for GAR encampments (see Gettysburg National Cemetery).

BATTLEFIELD PRESERVATION The distinctive American pattern of preserving battlefields as parks owned and administered by the federal government is largely a consequence of the efforts of Civil War veterans. The battlefields of the American Revolution and other early wars had not been intentionally preserved or even marked apart from a few conspicuous exceptions such as the monument erected at Lexington in 1799. The centennial of American independence led Congress to erect a series of eight monuments at Revolutionary War battlefields in the 1880s, although no efforts were made to preserve the actual battlefields. While a few Civil War battlefields saw monuments erected by soldiers themselves during and immediately after the war, the efforts of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association to preserve parts of the battlefield there mark the beginnings of battlefield preservation in the United States, though this was a process that originally was led

Actual battlefield preservation by the federal government began in 1890, largely due to the efforts of Henry Van Ness Boynton and Ferdinand Vanderveer, veterans of the Union army of the Cumberland. Following a reunion at the site of the battle of Chickamauga in northwest Georgia, they conceived the idea of obtaining federal aid to preserve the battlefield there as a memorial to the valor of both armies and as an aid to reconciliation between the North and the South. In 1890, Congress (with veteran members from both parties and sections taking an active role) created the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park (see Appendix 1, Georgia). Later the same year, a smaller area was

89

90 |

Battlefield Preservation

purchased by the federal government in Maryland, preserving key locations on the Antietam battlefield. Further pressure by veterans’ groups helped to bring about the creation of federally funded battlefield parks at Shiloh (1894—see Appendix 1, Tennessee) and Vicksburg (1899 —see Appendix 1, Mississippi). Meanwhile Gettysburg became a national military park in 1895, as the battlefield association turned over its holdings to the government and efforts began to acquire property that had held Confederate positions during the battle. By the turn of the century, the federal government thus administered five battlefield parks. While each had its own peculiarities, they generally followed the pattern set at the ChickamaugaChattanooga park. Under the aegis of the War Department, each park was governed by a three-member commission: typically two Union veterans and one former Confederate (see Confederate Veterans Associations), a system that guaranteed veteran control of the parks. The commissions oversaw the marking of troop positions (for which the federal government provided markers) and invited the states and veterans organizations to erect monuments. (Congress itself erected monuments to regular army units.) The commissions had to approve plans for monuments and inscriptions and followed a policy that the latter be based on official records, limited to the specifics of the particular battle, and neutral in language. This sometimes led to lively controversies with veterans’ groups when the latter had different memories of the battle or wanted to express other sentiments. In 1912, Congress decided that no more park commissioners would be appointed. As they died out, they simply were not

replaced. Eventually, the parks came to be administered by appointed superintendents. Even then, veteran influence remained strong. After the last Gettysburg commissioner died in 1922, another Civil War veteran was appointed as superintendent. He, in turn, was succeeded in 1927 by a World War I veteran. From the start, the parks combined preservation with a memorial intent. They were also justified on the grounds that they would be useful in the military education of future officers and were used for staff rides and a variety of other military activities. The parks also proved popular as venues for veterans’ reunions, with especially notable ‘‘blue-gray’’ gatherings taking place at Gettysburg in 1913 and Vicksburg in 1917 (see Reunions). This fostered battlefield tourism, a phenomenon that veterans had begun in the Civil War’s aftermath and was also encouraged by local chambers of commerce, railroads, and eventually by auto makers and oil companies. After establishing the five original parks in the 1890s, Congress showed increasing reluctance to add to the total, and little was done to expand the system until the 1920s. Congress called for the War Department to conduct a classification of all battlefields on American soil in 1926, after which a number of smaller Civil War parks were established, along with several based on battlefields from the Revolutionary War and other conflicts. In 1933, in a move generally resisted by the rapidly diminishing number of Civil War veterans, the battlefield parks were transferred to the National Park Service. Their mission became more broadly educational as well as recreational. While veterans’ preference in government hiring would help to ensure a veteran presence in the operation of national parks and battlefields, they

Benefits became much less easily characterized as veterans’ projects. National park origins lingered in various ways, however, not least in the way how signs, guides, and visitors centers operate on battlefields. The early emphasis on the experience of battle and the courage displayed by both sides led to a tendency to interpret the battlefields—and the Civil War in general—in primarily operational terms. By the late-twentieth century, this prompted growing criticism that such an emphasis missed the larger social and political issues of the war, especially with regard to race and slavery. By the turn of the century, the Park Service was changing its interpretations of Civil War sites in response. While twentieth-century conflicts provided few new battlefields within the United States, veterans of the era found ways to preserve the physical legacies of the nation’s military past. This most often took the form of preserving inactive military installations, vehicles, aircraft, ships, and weaponry. Such efforts varied widely in inspiration and objectives but most often involved veterans and non-veterans working together in not-for-profit organizations. (Though normally lacking federal funding, such groups often cooperated with the Park Service and other agencies.) The Council on Abandoned Military Posts, founded in Arizona in 1966 (which became the Council on America’s Military Past in 1981), exemplifies such efforts. Other groups focused on maintaining military and naval assets in operational condition. The effort of the Commemorative (originally Confederate) Air Force, founded by World War II veterans in 1951 to preserve and operate the aircraft of that conflict, is but one of many possible examples that illustrate the continuing

| 91

role of veterans in preserving tangible aspects of the nation’s military past. William C. Lowe

Further Reading Commemorative Air Force. www.com memorativeairforce.org. Council on America’s Military Past. www.campjamp.org. Lee, Ronald F. The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1973. Smith, Timothy B. The Golden Age of Battlefield Preservation: The Decade of the 1890s and the Establishment of America’s First Five Military Parks. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 2008. Piehler, G. Kurt. Remembering War the American Way. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press, 1995. Weeks, Jim. Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.

BENEFITS The historical development of the U.S. government’s policies benefiting America’s war veterans reflects the complex evolution of the nation’s economic and political institutions, as well as its underlying social values. As the number of veterans increased over time, particularly during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II eras, governmental benefits legislation increased as well. This increase not only reflected the practical desire to care for those who served on behalf of the country, but also the political and economic clout of veterans who returned to civilian society upon conclusion of their military service. As a result, the influence of veterans on American institutions and values proved just as

92 |

Benefits

important as the government’s influence on their lives through benefits awarded for service to their country.

Beginnings: The Revolutionary War to the Mexican War The Continental Congress passed the initial national pension law for disabled veterans in August 1776. In the midst of General George Washington’s New York campaign and accompanying desertions and expiring enlistments within the Continental Army, such a law was an effort to ensure retention of a viable army in the field. This inaugural act provided for half of monthly pay for disabled veterans, for the length of their disability. A new law in 1778 provided officers serving until the end of the war half pay for a subsequent seven years. This benefit was extended to pay for life in 1780. The Continental enlisted soldier, however, was promised only $80 in devalued Continental money for service until the end of the war, representing a year’s pay. Land warrants, which would guarantee soldiers a farm they could support themselves and their families on, were more valuable. Although it took a while after the Revolution to work these out, they frequently led to veterans settling new lands on what was then the frontier, most immediately the region from western Pennsylvania and Ohio to Kentucky and Tennessee. These warrants reflected the common belief of the revolutionary generation that all ablebodied men who wanted to should be able to acquire their own land (see Revolutionary War Veterans). The end of the war brought with it the question of how veterans were to be paid, especially as Indians controlled much of

the new land acquired during the Revolution and no funds were available for the cash benefits. Payment of pensions thus became the responsibility of individual states. This patchwork arrangement created disparate payments and resolve to benefit veterans among the states. In the absence of a central administrative authority to dictate uniform application of the pension laws, the Society of the Cincinnati stepped into the breach. An organization of former Continental Army officers formed to provide charitable relief to its members and their families, the society served as the new nation’s first veterans’ service organization. However, the society focused mainly on protecting the interests of its gentleman members with regard to pensions and recognition. As for the regular soldier who had no such protective organization, he slipped back into civilian life with an uncertain pension future. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution resulted in the new federal government assuming control of providing for veterans from the states. The First Congress enacted legislation in 1789 to continue the provisions of the first disability pension act. But Congress was now confronted with the issue of how best to administer a governmental program which gradually became a significant portion of the federal budget. Pension claims were first vetted at the local circuit court level through the Invalid Pension Act of 1792, with the secretary of war serving as the final arbiter of disputed claims. This decentralized arrangement initially made sense since claims could be resolved where veterans resided. Usually, the veteran had to prove he had in fact served in the war and acquired his wounds there. But the measure proved unwieldy and

Benefits Congress quickly—within a year of the law’s enactment—conferred the federal district courts with the responsibility of administering pension claims, with Congress as the final authority over disputes. This system also posed problems, so after 1794 the Office of the Secretary of War gradually assumed control over pension claims. A flurry of legislation appeared between 1800 and 1832 expanding the number of veterans qualified to receive benefits from service in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The 1803 and 1805 federal acts provided benefits to those not only disabled during wartime service, but also to those who became disabled after service due to war wounds. Congress took a significant step in 1806 by expanding invalid pension coverage to the large contingent of state troops and militia veterans who had previously been serviced by the individual states. Congress also resumed control over pension administration. An 1813 federal law, passed during the middle of the War of 1812, applied all existing pension laws to the War of 1812 veterans to encourage enlistment in a war that was not popular in many parts of the country. As a result of a budget surplus in 1816, pension allowances increased and halfpay pensions for a five-year period were granted to widows and orphans of veterans of the recent war with Great Britain (see War of 1812 Veterans). By this time in the young nation’s history, political rhetoric extolling the virtues of the Revolution, as well as the crises experienced in the country’s relationship with Great Britain, fostered the image of the suffering veteran in the public mind and recalled the sacrifices made by soldiers during the war. These images helped spark the passage of need-based

| 93

pension legislation in 1818 in response to claims of poverty on the part of many veterans. This law thus expanded the traditional underlying disability basis of most veterans’ benefits acts. But the nation’s economic downturn triggered by the Panic of 1819, coupled with rising pension roll numbers, associated costs, and allegations of pension claim fraud, created an uproar by raising the specter of a republic-damaging caste of men supported by the federal government. Congress responded by enacting the Alarm Act of 1820 requiring claimants to provide a sworn schedule of their estates and income. At this time 30,000 veterans applied on the basis of need out of 88,000 total pension claims. Nevertheless, the rationale for veterans’ benefits changed once again in the early 1830s when Congress took the next step (not without some opposition) and introduced a service pension schedule disentangled from any requirement of disability or pauperism. Surviving Revolutionary War veterans needed only to show a minimum cumulative service of two years to receive a life pension or service between six months and two years to receive a proportional pension. Subsequent amendments and acts in the 1830s expanded benefits further for surviving veterans and widows and orphans of deceased veterans in the context of a Treasury surplus. The rapid increase in pension claims also forced Congress in 1833 to form the Bureau of Pensions dedicated to pension administration, first under the direction of the secretary of war and then under the secretary of the navy until 1849 when the secretary of the interior assumed responsibility. The final piece of pension legislation approved prior to the Civil War became part of Congress’s 1846 declaration of

94 |

Benefits

war against Mexico. For this war, volunteers received only service-related disability benefits under existing laws. No purely service pension coverage existed for Mexican War veterans until 1887 (see Mexican War Veterans).

The Civil War and Postwar Developments Just prior to the onslaught of the Civil War in 1861, approximately 80,000 veterans of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War survived. The small percentage of veterans, compared to the growing population of the country before the Civil War, had made it relatively easy for the United States to take care of its surviving veterans. A short four years later, 1,900,000 Union army and Union navy veterans were added to this number, comprising about a tenth of the entire population of the North, or one in five of its adult males. The human cost of the war launched benefit legislation to new levels. Union veterans did not have to wait long for benefits to begin accruing. President Abraham Lincoln signed the General Pension Act of 1862 whereby Union soldiers and sailors disabled in the war received pensions. Dependents of those killed also received relief. The novelty of this law lay in its inclusion of disability and death related to certain diseases, such as tuberculosis. More soldiers died from disease than battle during the war, and the horrific numbers of casualties arising mandated nothing less in the government’s view. The year of 1862 also witnessed the removal of 2,000 Confederate soldiers from the rolls who earned pensions from participation in previous American wars. The removal

served as a harbinger of sectional tensions over pension legislation during the post-Civil War era and the national government’s refusal to assist Confederate veterans (see Civil War Veterans). The General Pension Act was amended virtually every year during the war and afterwards. However, several significant amendments require highlighting. First, Congress passed the Arrears of Pension Act in March 1879. Rather than receiving payments from the date of a pension application, Union veterans and their dependents received back pay from the date of military discharge. In essence, a veteran or dependent applying for a pension under the act before July 1880 would not only receive a monthly payment, but also a single arrears payment of at least 15 years’ back pay. The generosity embodied in the act resulted in 44,000 new pension claims in June 1880 alone. However, the act was not without its detractors from both the northern and southern portions of the country. Expenditures for pensions doubled from implementation of the Arrears of Pension Act to the end of the 1880s, causing consternation. Furthermore, though highlighting cost as an ostensible barrier, southern congressmen in reality opposed any expansion of the pension rolls in the absence of federal relief for Confederate veterans, except for those Mexican War veterans restored to the pension rolls in 1887. However, expansion of the pension rolls soon became an overwhelming force in American political, economic, and social life with the ever-aging veteran population, a budgetary surplus, and the significant presence of Union veterans in the legislative and executive branches of government. By the

Benefits mid-1880s, 40 percent of House legislation and 55 percent of Senate legislation addressed pensions for veterans (see Pensions, Civil War). Another significant factor in expansion of benefits in post-Civil War America was institutional in character. The National Asylum (later Home) for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers (see Veterans’ Homes) established in 1866, provided medical treatment and hospital services for disabled Union veterans in a number of branches across the country. Accommodations were expanded in 1884 to include surviving War of 1812 and Mexican War veterans. Although initially fraught with fraud and abuse due to minimal oversight, these houses often served as the only places where sick and disabled veterans could find relief as they aged. Coinciding with the increase in veterans and the astonishing proportion of pension legislation in Congress, the work of the Bureau of Pensions augmented. Consuming 21 percent of the federal budget in 1880, 34 percent a decade later, and 27 percent by the end of the century, the bureau served as a powerful Republican political tool, with its workers appointed almost invariably by Republican presidents (all of them except Grover Cleveland from 1861 to 1913). They thus were favorably inclined to approve requests from fellow Republicans and those recommended by the Grand Army of the Republic. Prior to 1890, pension applicants had to provide evidence of eligibility under existing disability pension laws, including verification of a war-related disability by a surgical board approved by the federal government, at least 90 days of wartime service, and an honorable discharge. Additional evidence was required for

| 95

widows and other dependents of veterans to receive pensions. This evidentiary system reflected the need to verify what was perceived as a reward for service for those who had borne the risks of war and suffered for it, not as a general entitlement for service, although such an idea had evolved by the 1890s. Costs rose for both the applicant and the government through this bureaucratic process. Clerks and other employees within the bureau had to verify service of an applicant through the War Department, interview witnesses, verify additional evidence of disability and service, work with agents contracted by applicants to administer claims—these individuals advertised their services to veterans for a fee—and in more probing cases, send field investigators to the locale of a claimant to find additional information to evaluate the claim. These ever-increasing costs tracked the liberalization of the pension laws. The system also triggered corresponding costs for claimants who had to present witnesses, provide affidavits, travel to surgical board venues, and bear the expenses of any hired pension attorneys or claim agents. By 1910, an average federal pension benefit rose to $189 a year. However, the initial costs sometimes served as a barrier to applicants, particularly to African American veterans who though entitled to benefits under the pension laws in accordance with the 14th Amendment, averaged an annual income of only $250 in the post-Civil War era. About 9.5 percent of the army was comprised of African Americans. While impoverished white veterans also experienced difficulty with their claims due to expense, African Americans faced additional barriers due to the lingering effects of slavery. Illiteracy, lack of

96 |

Benefits

documentation of service, name changes to coincide with a new life in freedom, fraudulent claim agents, and racial bias within the bureau itself all served to create problems for these veterans in their pursuit of successful pension claims. A sampling of Civil War pension applications indicates a success rate of more than 92 percent for white veterans and only 75 percent for African American veterans. The discrepancy was even greater for dependent applications. (see African American Veterans—Civil War). Another institutional factor in the expansion of the pension rolls and liberalization of the system was the lobbying work of the Grand Army of the Republic, the most powerful Union veterans’ association in the country. Influential beginning in the late 1870s, the GAR reached a membership of 400,000 at its peak in 1890. The 1880s in particular witnessed electoral parity between the Democrats and Republicans, heightening the importance of capturing the veteran vote in the 1880 and 1884 presidential campaigns and focusing legislative attention on pensions. The GAR’s lobbying influence in the latter half of the 1880s resulted in the second major piece of pension legislation arising from the post-Civil War period, the Dependent Pension Act of 1890. Moving beyond the evidentiary requirement of warrelated disability or war-related death for dependent applicants as embodied in the 1887 Arrears of Pension Act, the new act granted a pension to every honorably discharged Union soldier and sailor who had served 90 days in the war and suffered a disability, regardless if it was war-related or not. The law also disposed of any required evidence of need.

The practical effect of the Dependent Pension Act in its administration was the expansion of pensioners in the system from 537,944 in 1890 to over 966,000 in 1893, with pension administration comprising 40 percent of the federal budget during the Depression of the 1890s. The liberal application of the law over the next few decades, including the interpretation of the age of 62 and older as a disability through President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 Pension Order No. 78 and the Sherwood Act of 1912’s removal of the disability requirement, essentially created a pure service pension system resting on the idea that the service of a Union veteran created a contract and a right: in return for past service, he was owed national support regardless of need or disability. The same view, however, did not apply to Confederate veterans. Although Confederate veterans with federal military service were restored to the pension rolls in the 1890s, most veterans who fought for the South relied on southern state legislatures to provide pension relief (see Confederate Veterans Associations). Not until 1958 did President Dwight Eisenhower sign into law a bill placing the two surviving Confederate veterans and over one thousand Confederate widows on the pension rolls.

The Great War to the Great Depression Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection veterans also enjoyed benefits under the pension structure developed since the Civil War. By the beginning of World War I, thousands of these veterans as well as over 400,000 Civil War veterans still collected federal

Benefits pensions. But World War I veterans experienced a more complicated process upon their return from war, and one which ultimately left a bitter taste in their mouths with the emergence of the Great Depression in 1929. Assuming the war in Europe would not necessitate American involvement except for the provision of war supplies through ship transport, Congress passed the War Risk Insurance Act of 1914 and a new administrative bureau to insure American transport ships exposed to German submarine attack. This act was amended in 1917 upon America’s entry into the war. It extended the idea of insurance coverage from the way the navy had previously functioned: a portion of servicemen’s pay was deducted for insurance in case of disability. Other legislation during America’s involvement in the war extended this insurance coverage to dependents for those veterans disabled or killed while serving in the war. Additional benefits included a $60 discharge allowance, a disabilities rating system based on degree of impairment, and compensation for aggravation of a preexisting condition through military service. The conclusion of the war brought with it 116,000 American dead (53,000 in combat) and 204,000 wounded out of 4,170,000 who served. The Bureau of War Risk Insurance began handling the insurance claims of disabled veterans and dependent claimants while the Bureau of Pensions continued to focus on pensioners from prior American wars. A new wrinkle in the veterans’ benefit system mirrored the realities of an increasingly industrialized America in its thirst for labor. The large number of able-bodied and disabled veterans returning from the war served as an enticing labor pool for industry. To assist

| 97

honorably discharged disabled veterans in finding appropriate work and to satisfy the labor needs of industry, Congress enacted the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918 which charged the Bureau of War Risk Insurance to provide rehabilitation and training. Other federal agencies provided additional services such as work placement, education, and hospital services. The fracturing of these various services created inefficiencies and delays in service. Accordingly, upon the recommendation of the Dawes Commission established by President Warren Harding to examine the problem, Congress passed the Veterans Bureau Act of 1921 which consolidated all services for World War I veterans into one agency, the Veterans Bureau. The World War Veterans’ Act followed the same year to streamline all existing laws affecting the bureau. Federal pensions and other benefits for all of America’s eligible war veterans now were administered by the Veterans Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, until 1930 when all three institutions merged to form the Veterans Administration (see entry). Given the decision by President Wilson and Congress to adopt an insurancebased system for those who served in the Great War instead of a traditional pension model, service personnel found themselves with only two months’ base pay of $60 upon discharge. Veterans’ groups such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, modeling the efforts of the Grand Army of the Republic in the previous generation, began lobbying Congress for larger payments (see Bonus March). Over 75 bonus bills of varying provisions had been proposed by May 1920.

98 |

Benefits

The primary focus of veterans’ groups was a cash bonus at the rate of a dollar a day for service in the United States and an additional 25 cents for each day of service overseas. The bonus effort met effective resistance from critics due to the anticipated cost of at least $2 bilion, coupled with the ongoing pension costs for Spanish-American and Civil War veterans, and the reluctance to pay African American World War I veterans in an atmosphere of rising racial tensions. Congress, for political cover, was also able to point to a number of statesponsored bonuses as an alternative, although the disparity of payments among the states echoed the patchwork pension framework of the Confederation period. Proponents failed in their efforts to obtain bonus legislation in 1920 and in several other attempts over the next few years due to continuing cost concerns and fear within the business community that such a widespread bonus would derail President Harding’s plans to cut taxes. But the lobbying work of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars and their supporters in Congress paid off in 1924 with a compromise bill overriding President Calvin Coolidge’s veto. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 essentially extended the insurance model underlying the War Risk Insurance Act of 1914 and its 1917 amendments by providing veterans with a 21-year life insurance policy payable at death or in 1945, whichever occurred first. Veterans who had served between April 5, 1917, and July 1, 1919, for a period of more than 50 days received a dollar a day for service within the United States and an extra 25 cents for each day’s service overseas. The two months’ discharge allowance of

$60 already paid was deducted from the total compensation amount. A veteran owed $50 or less was immediately paid the amount. The remainder, approximately 3,330,000 veterans, received certificates of 4 percent interest to be redeemed in 1945 with an additional 25 percent added at the time of redemption to account for the issuance of certificates instead of a cash payout. As with Union veterans at the turn of the century, World War I veterans viewed the promised compensation as a debt owed to those who had served and suffered on behalf of a country they loved. Four years later officers disabled during the war received heightened compensation through the Emergency Officers’ Retirement Act with little fanfare. But the ravages of the Great Depression and the financial desperation of many veterans led to tensions and the 1931 passage of Public Law 743, authorizing veterans to borrow up to 50 percent of the maturity value of their issued certificates with 3 percent compound interest. Beset with continued financial straits and realizing that the loan interest would considerably decrease the redemption value of the certificates at maturity, veterans increased their demands for an immediate cash payment, eventually leading to 20,000 veterans—and about an equal number of family members—making their way to Washington in May 1932 to pressure the government. Calling their loose organization the Bonus Expeditionary Force (BEF—see Bonus March) as a reminder to the public of their service in the American Expeditionary Force in Europe, participating black and white veterans established integrated camps in the capital. The efforts of the BEF failed after intense lobbying efforts. The House passed

Benefits a lump-sum bonus bill, but the Senate tabled it until the next Congress. Discouraged, most members of the BEF headed home. The approximately 2,000 remaining continued to stay in their camps with newly arriving veterans joining the ranks. In the midst of fears of communist operatives joining the veterans and their families to foster violence and worries of epidemics breaking out in the camps, Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, led troops to evict the veterans from Washington. The eviction on July 28, 1932, resulted in destruction of the camps and several veterans being killed. It also created a public relations fiasco for President Herbert Hoover during a presidential election year. The failure of the BEF to garner immediate bonus payments for its members was compounded by newly elected President Franklin Roosevelt’s slashing of $480,000,000 in veterans’ benefits through the Economy Act of 1933 in order to balance the budget. The swiftness of the legislative move, together with Roosevelt’s popularity, prevented any effective lobbying by veterans’ organizations. However, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans lobbied hard for a new bonus bill. Pressured by threats of filibusters on legislation favored by Roosevelt as well as growing public support for the veterans, the president halfheartedly vetoed the January 1936 bill which provided issuance of bonds in $50 increments, redeemable as early as June 15, 1936, or held to maturity until 1945 at 3 percent interest. Congress quickly overrode the veto and soon after June 15, 3,518,000 World War I veterans began receiving bonus packets, which altogether totaled $1.9 billion. The cash not only benefited veterans and served as

an economic boon for many locales, it also ended an 18-year struggle for veterans of the Great War.

World War II and the GI Bill Only five years after finally awarding its World War I veterans bonus payments, the United States entered another world war. The specter of another Bonus Army arising from disgruntled World War II veterans in the absence of a comprehensive benefits plan, as well as Department of Labor forecasts of potentially 15,000,000 unemployed veterans returning home at the end of the war, sparked efforts to find a workable solution. Initial steps included provisions in the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 relating to a guarantee of reemployment for veterans and the development of a vocational rehabilitation program for disabled veterans through the Disabled Veterans’ Rehabilitation Act of 1943. The Veterans Administration staffed vocational rehabilitation training specialists and also contracted with a number of schools across the country to provide training for any overflow of disabled veterans. It soon became clear that the agency’s structure and staffing were inadequate to provide appropriate services for the eventual 671,876 Americans wounded by the end of the war and dependents of the 405,399 killed. A survey conducted of 1,536 veterans disabled during the first two years following America’s entry into the war disclosed a typical wait of three to eleven months for a disabled veteran to receive care, disability compensation, and rehabilitation training. These rising concerns prodded Congressmen to submit 243 veterans’ benefit bills of varying provisions by the end of 1943. President Roosevelt entered the fray by sketching out in a July 28,

| 99

100 |

Benefits

1943, fireside chat a broad vision for a postwar plan to provide returning veterans educational and employment opportunities. He envisioned this plan as the first step in providing such governmental opportunities for all Americans. Five months later, an American Legion committee formulated a more specific veterans’ benefit plan based on Roosevelt’s vision to cover housing, education and training, unemployment compensation, and job placement. This plan, the American Legion Omnibus Bill, was debated in Congress among educator concerns over the potential influx of war veterans into the nation’s elite colleges and racial bias among some congressmen against awarding benefits to African American veterans. However, public support and momentum favored proponents of the legislation. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (see entry), more popularly known as the GI Bill of Rights, was accordingly signed into law by President Roosevelt on June 22, 1944. The GI Bill’s three major features addressing education, providing home loans, and paying unemployment compensation were far-reaching in their impact on American life after the war. The GI Bill enabled veterans and their families more effectively to adjust to civilian life. But more importantly, its provisions provided opportunities for returning war veterans to move up economically and socially in American society if they could tap into any of the three major features of the legislation. Upon returning from the war, a veteran could ostensibly receive $20 a week for a year in unemployment benefits to help him or her financially adjust to the home front; receive tuition payments for college up to $500 per year, as well as a textbook allowance and a monthly stipend of $50,

with married veterans receiving $65; and then apply for a 20-year home, farm, or business loan with $2,000 guaranteed, low interest rates, and certain credit checks and income requirements eliminated. The bill’s popularity resulted in nearly 8,000,000 World War II veterans taking advantage of the GI Bill by 1956 and the expansion of America’s middle class (see also World War II Veterans).

The Korean War to the Iraq War The benefits earned by American veterans of World War I and World War II laid the foundation for benefits provided to American veterans serving in the Korean and future wars. Congress particularly focused on enhancing and adjusting the basic features of the original GI Bill of 1944 in the areas of education, vocational rehabilitation and training, and unemployment insurance for veterans of these subsequent wars. Major legislation during the Korean War focused on extending vocational rehabilitation programs through the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1950 to Korean War veterans, eventually benefiting the 77,000 disabled returning from the war. The Veterans’ Adjustment Assistance Act of 1952, also known as the Korean GI Bill, modeled the provisions of the initial GI Bill but limited educational benefits due to an improving economy. A slew of additional acts and amendments in the 1950s continued to support and provide cost-of-living adjustments for disability, unemployment and life insurance, and other benefits for the 21,861,000 surviving veterans of all wars as of 1955. In concert with the growth in veterans and

Benefits programs, the Veterans Administration was reorganized to meet service demands. The advancing nature of war technology and military medicine by the time of the Vietnam War improved the chances of survival for wounded and injured veterans. By 1972, at the height of the Vietnam War, 308,000 disabled veterans of the war required assistance. The Veterans’ Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966, or Vietnam GI Bill, provided additional vocational rehabilitation and training services to these veterans and further educational benefits to all Vietnam War veterans. The legislation was also designed to encourage military service during a time of initial social unrest over American involvement in the war. Congress also enacted in 1965 the Uniformed Service-Group Life Insurance Act which established the largest group life insurance program for veterans and their families ever in American history. The post-Vietnam War period witnessed a change from the military draft system to an all-volunteer force system. This shift also created a shift in the underlying reasons for awarding benefits. The focus turned toward recruitment, not reward, since now the majority of Americans who entered military service did so by choice. The Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1977 first signaled this shift by giving service members the option of contributing to an educational fund for future education expenses. Several congressional bills in 1981 and 1984 granted educational benefits based on years of service to spark recruitment and retention in a healthy U.S. economy. For example, the popular 1984 Montgomery Bill provided educational benefits of $300 per month

| 101

for 36 months in exchange for three years of active duty, or a combination of two years active duty and four years of reserve service. The patriotic fervor triggered by the Persian Gulf War enhanced the popularity of those who served in uniform and all veterans, resulting in the presentation of close to 100 veterans bills in Congress. The Persian Gulf Conflict Supplemental Authorization and Personnel Benefits Act of 1991, or Gulf Act, extended to Gulf War veterans’ benefits accrued to all veterans under prior legislation. Additional health benefits were also provided the next year through the Veterans Health Care Act. Since the Persian Gulf War, additional proposed benefits legislation specifically to assist Iraq War veterans and Afghan War veterans was debated without success in Congress until 2008 as the Bush administration balked at the expense. That year, as a Democratic Congress threatened to withhold funding for the Iraq War, the president signed the new Veterans Education Assistance Act on June 30. It would pay full college tuition for veterans who had served over three years after September 11, 2001, up to the cost of the most expensive state university in a state. (Many private universities also offered scholarships to veterans to make up at least some of the difference.) Housing allowances were also provided, geared to local costs of living, and veterans had 15 years to use their benefits rather than the previous 8. As many veterans—frequently reservists who had not anticipated combat service —had been serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq, the new measures reflected the nation’s realization of the disproportionate sacrifices the relatively small percentage of the population assigned to

102 |

Blinded Veterans of America

Iraq and Afghanistan had made for their country. They also represent an added incentive to recruit new, and qualified, military personnel as enlistments have fallen off due to the war. Mark F. Leep

Further Reading Cox, Caroline. A Proper Sense of Honor: Service and Sacrifice in George Washington’s Army. Chapel Hill, NC, and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Dickson, Paul, and Thomas B. Allen. The Bonus Army: An American Epic. New York: Walker and Company, 2004. GI Bill 2008. www.gibill2008.org. Humes, Edward. Over Here: How the G.I. Bill Transformed the American Dream. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2006. Knight, Amy W., and Robert L. Worden. The Veterans Benefits Administration: An Organizational History, 1776–1994. Collingdale, PA: Diane, 1995. McConnell, Stuart. Glorious Contentment: The Grand Army of the Republic, 1865– 1900. (Chapel Hill, NC, and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1992. Shaffer, Donald R. ‘‘ ‘I Do Not Suppose That Uncle Sam Looks at the Skin’: African Americans and the Civil War Pension System, 1865–1934.’’ Civil War History 46 (2000): 132–47. Vogel, Jeffrey E. ‘‘Redefining Reconciliation: Confederate Veterans and the Southern Responses to Federal Civil War Pensions.’’ Civil War History 51 (2005): 67–93.

BLINDED VETERANS OF AMERICA Blinded Veterans of America (BVA) was founded in March 1945 at the U.S. Army’s rehabilitation facility for blind and visually impaired veterans, Old

Farms, at Avon, Connecticut. Although blinded veterans from the marines and navy were cared for at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital, they too soon joined the organization. By 1948, about 60 percent, or 850, of the veterans blinded in World War II belonged. The BVA made a mission of distinguishing men blinded during adulthood, such as themselves, from the general, civilian blind population, most of whom were blind since birth. They believed most blind people, relegated to menial tasks or institutions, were objects of charity and pity, an image they wanted to change. Important issues for which the BVA successfully fought included having guide dogs allowed in public places and developing programs that allowed blind people to be gainfully employed—by hiring readers who could read and explain books that taught them skills. Russell Williams, a founding member, established the first permanent Veterans Administration Rehabilitation Facility for the Blind at Hines, Illinois, and from 1949 to 1976 was the director of Blind Rehabilitation Services for the Veterans Administration. The BVA’s other major program was to fight for racial and religious equality. One founding member, Pincus Hoffman, a Jew who had been snowblinded in the Aleutian Islands, served on the national board of directors, as vice president, secretary, and treasurer at different times. Another early secretary was Vasco DaGama Hale, a Connecticut African American who was blind, partially deaf, and had lost one hand completely and four fingers on the other. Hispanic and Asian blinded veterans were also encouraged to join. The BVA was thus more liberal than the major veterans’ organizations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and

Blinded Veterans of America the American Legion, which in the years immediately after World War II allowed local posts and state organizations to decide who subsequent members would be, thereby attempting to defuse racial issues that would divide the national body. The BVA deliberately made racial equality a major point of its program, as its insignia demonstrates. It is a sixpointed military star with a black and white hand within the star grasping each other in friendship. A cross and a Star of David are above it. Interviews with founders of the BVA by historian David A. Gerber indicate that their sudden blindness inspired them to realize that they had more in common with other blind people regardless of race or religion than with sighted people generally. They also realized that they were a small group who needed to struggle together in order to lead fulfilling lives. Blindness, in short, was a form of rebirth. Most blinded veterans used military terms such as ‘‘attack’’ or ‘‘fight’’ to describe their ‘‘campaign’’ for better jobs and programs. The principal program that enabled blind veterans to function in society was a four-and-a-half month course in ‘‘cane technique’’ at the Hines Rehabilitation Facility. Dr. Richard Hoover had advanced cane technique significantly with his studies during World War II designed to help returning veterans. Only staff and the blind themselves were present during the course as visitors were believed liable to accept excuses for lack of performance. Veterans learned braille and typing and participated in sports and recreation. To graduate, each man had to find his way to the heart of Chicago from the suburbs using a bus and a commuter train. As it required rigorous practice to maintain the cane technique, not all men continued to use it after they

| 103

left Hines, becoming dependent again on wives and families. The BVA has used only blinded veterans themselves as service officers, who were taken to where other blind veterans lived. It insisted on ‘‘Jobs not Pity’’ as its motto, and while blind veterans of course had the option of living at government expense, over half the members of the organization have been gainfully employed. Unskilled men were specifically trained to manage newsstands in government buildings. Service personnel who became blinded after their discharge could also join. The BVA inducted Sergeant Isaac Woodard of South Carolina, a veteran who was blinded when he was beaten in 1946, at a well-publicized ceremony at BVA’s New York City national headquarters the following year and called for the prosecution of the culprits. Among those assisting the blind veterans at Avon, Connecticut, was the novelist Baynard Kendrick, a World War I veteran who was known for creating the character of a blind detective Duncan Maclain. Besides offering comfort, he taught courses in accounting, English, and creative writing. His novel Lights Out (1946), which became the basis for the feature film Bright Victory (1951)— the title was made more positive to attract audiences—was the story of a Southern white veteran who overcame his prejudices at Avon and became best friends with an African American as both of them overcame despair at being blind. Kendrick was the only sighted member of the board of directors, an honor he acquired thanks to his work for the blind; otherwise, the BVA insisted that all their officers were blind. The BVA accepts visually impaired as well as blind veterans as members and

104 |

Blue Star Mothers

estimates potential current membership at 165,000. Thirteen percent of Gulf War veterans, the largest proportion of blind or partially blind veterans to be identified from any conflict in American history, fit this category. An auxiliary is composed of anyone, friend or relative, who wishes to assist blinded veterans. The BVA has service officers available throughout the nation to assist veterans, offers support during rehabilitation, and works with other veterans’ associations to obtain better health care for veterans in general. William Pencak See also Disabled American Veterans; Benefits

Further Reading Blinded Veterans of America. www.bva.org. Gerber, David A. ‘‘Blind and Enlightened: The Contested Origins of the Egalitarian Politics of the Blinded Veterans of America.’’ In The New Disability History: American Perspectives, edited by Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky. New York: New York University Press, 2001.

BLUE STAR MOTHERS Captain Robert L. Queissner of the Fifth Ohio Infantry designed the blue star service flag during World War I. He wanted to honor his two sons fighting on the front lines in Europe. Proud parents of service members began displaying blue stars in their front windows to let the public know of their children’s sacrifices. On September 24, 1917, an endorsement of the service flag was read into the Congressional Record: ‘‘The mayor of Cleveland, the Chamber of Commerce and the governor of Ohio have adopted this service flag. The world should know

of those who give so much for liberty. The dearest thing in all the world to a father and mother—their children.’’ The blue star, symbolizing hope and pride, was replaced by a gold one, manifesting sacrifice, when news arrived of a service member’s death. In January 1942, Captain George H. Maines received over 1,000 responses to his ad asking for the mothers of service members to write in about their children in uniform. Maines organized the first meeting of the Blue Star Mothers in Flint, Michigan, on February 1, 1942. Local chapters formed throughout the country during the fervor or World War II, when the blue star service flag became a fixture in many households. During World War II, the Blue Star Mothers worked in train stations and hospitals and served as a support group in case of tragedy. In 1960, Congress chartered the Blue Star Mothers as a veterans’ service organization. Today the Blue Star Mothers of America have extended their support responsibilities to include work in rehabilitation centers, assistance with children of service members, civil defense including hurricane relief, and aid with securing veteran’s benefits. This work is in addition to their traditional service of preparing care packages, raising money, and supporting USO endeavors. William Whyte III See also American War Mothers; Gold Star Mothers; World War I Veterans; World War II Veterans

Further Reading Blue Star Mothers. www.bluestarmothers.org. Williams, Rudi. ‘‘Blue Star Mothers Offer Constant Care.’’ American Forces Press

Bonus March | 105 Service, March 2000. www.defenselink.mil/news/ newsarticle.aspx?id=44981.

BONUS, BONUS BILL, BONUS EXPEDITIONARY FORCE See Bonus March

BONUS MARCH The Bonus March was the name used by the press to refer to a 1932 march on Washington in which World War I veterans urged the federal government to pay immediately the Service Certificates they had received for their war service in 1924 under the Adjusted Service Certificate Act. Adjusted certificates had been issued to qualified veterans in an amount that was equal to a promised payment plus interest at a compound rate (see Benefits). The problem with the certificates was not that they were not valid, but that they had not yet matured. They were in many respects being treated by the government as if they were bonds. Since they were issued in 1924 or 1925 they were not going to mature until 1945. However, because of the economic hardships imposed by the Great Depression, the Bonus marchers had conceived the notion that the government should pay immediately to relieve their poverty, despite the fact that current law forbade payment until maturity. In 1931, the government permitted veterans to borrow up to half the amount they were eventually going to receive. This encouraged them to demand the rest. The march began in Oregon in the spring of 1932 and the eastward

marching veterans eventually numbered an estimated 20,000. The marchers ultimately totaled about 43,000 when family and affiliated groups are added. The marchers were driven out of Washington, DC, by troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur acting under orders of President Herbert Hoover in what became a very controversial event in American history. The veterans called themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force (B.E.F.) to remind Americans that they formerly belonged to the American Expeditionary Force in World War I when they were honored as heroes. They were also popularly known as the Bonus Army. Their presence in Washington was a very visible reminder of the depths of the economic depression that was scourging Americans across the country. Government certificates to reward veterans had been a practice that dated to the Revolution. The military bonuses were payments for the enlisted men that were supposed to make up the difference between what they earned as soldiers and what they would have earned if they had not enlisted. Prior to World War I the service bonus had been a payment in land and cash. However, the practice stopped with the Spanish-American War; nor was there a bonus granted at first after the end of World War I. In 1919 the American Legion was formed and although initially reluctant, it took up the cause of the service bonus as it was losing members to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which wholeheartedly endorsed the Bonus as soon as the idea was advanced at the end of the war. The veterans persuaded Congress to grant the Bonus, and it overrode President Calvin Coolidge’s veto to enact the legislation in 1924. The benefits

106 |

Bonus March

conferred by the legislation were calculated by a formula. Each day of service in the United States was calculated at the rate of a dollar a day with a cap set at $500. Each day of overseas service was calculated at a rate of $1.25 per day with a maximum of $625. Those who were eligible for $50 or less were paid immediately. Those owed more were given the certificates of service that would mature in 20 years. The program enrolled 3,662,374 veterans who were issued certificates that totaled $3,638,000,000. Congress set up a trust fund that would receive payments of $112 million per year for 20 years. The sums from the general treasury combined with interest would meet the face value of the certificates in 1945. The terms of the Adjusted Service Certificate Act of 1924 allowed veterans to borrow a maximum of 22.5 percent of the face value of their personal certificate. In 1931 the severity of the Great Depression led Congress to increase the loan potential on the certificates to 50 percent of face value. By April 1932, $1,248,000,000 had been loaned to veterans on their certificates. As the economic hardships of the Depression increased, demands for immediate payment of the bonus certificates multiplied. Immediate payment was introduced by Democratic Congressman Wright Patman of Texas as the first bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1, in the session of Congress that began in December 1931. There was support in Congress for an immediate payment. especially as pressure from veterans’ groups grew. The Veterans of Foreign Wars immediately endorsed payment; the American Legion did so in 1932 when its leaders realized it was losing members by failing to do so.

However, President Herbert Hoover and a number of congressmen were opposed, because they believed payment would cause a huge deficit in the federal budget and take money away from relief programs the Hoover administration had begun to implement to mitigate the effects of the Depression. Former Army Sergeant Walter W. Waters, an unemployed cannery superintendent in Portland, Oregon, became the leader of the movement. He was a dynamic ex-sergeant veteran who had served in the 146th Field Artillery in France. After his discharge from the army, he had drifted through a number of jobs. He read about previous marches and was inspired to go to Washington to demonstrate in support of Congressman Patman’s bill. He at first only envisioned the march rising to a few hundred men. He and others were encouraged to press their demand for immediate payment by retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, who was a hero to the World War I veterans. In the spring of 1932, millions of Americans were exhausting their savings and were growing desperate. The appeal of even a few dollars from the service certificates was a temptation to action. By May the Patman bill was buried in the House Ways and Means Committee. At this time, Walters was finding growing enthusiasm among Portland veterans for a march on Washington. Everyone who wanted to join had to offer proof of wartime service. They also had to be sworn into the Bonus March army and to submit to military discipline of the elected officers of the movement. The use of military discipline and the election of a ‘‘commander in chief’’ along with patriotic displays of flag ceremonies were established to dispel any claims that

Bonus March | 107 the Bonus Expeditionary Force was a mere mob of radicals. Three hundred members of the B.E.F. began their journey to Washington. At times they hopped freight trains or walked. Along the way local authorities gave them rides to the state line in order to be rid of them. They were also supported by Legion or VFW posts on the way. The journey was a tonic for men long unemployed and discouraged by the joblessness of the times. The Bonus marchers were met by the Washington police chief, retired Brigadier General Pelham D. Glassford. He was a popular figure in Washington who had been on the job for only six months. He had already handled two previous marches, the first led by Communists and the second led by Father James R. Cox of Pittsburgh, a Roman Catholic priest, to protest government inaction in the face of economic catastrophe. There had not been any trouble in either of these; however, the Bonus March was much bigger. Chief Glassford quickly recognized that the B.E.F. was overwhelming local resources. He supplied the marchers with food purchased with his own money and housed them in vacant government buildings. Meanwhile he was telegraphing the mayors and governors around the country to discourage additional marchers from coming. His appeal for aid to the Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley for army cots, bedding, and rolling kitchens was refused as an act that would encourage more veterans to descend on the city. His appeal to the commissioner of the District of Columbia, Major General Herbert B. Crosby, was also refused because Crosby wanted the veterans out of Washington, by force, if necessary. With the government refusing to help,

Glassford persuaded Washington’s wealthy to provide funds for food so that the veterans could be fed. The Bonus Army gathered in Washington, DC, where several shanty towns or ‘‘Hoovervilles’’ were erected from junk materials. The largest was in a swampy area across the Anacostia River from downtown Washington called Anacostia Flats. Admission to the camps was organized, and only those able to prove they were honorably discharged veterans and their families were allowed. The veterans controlled the area as if it had been a military camp with straight streets. Sanitation facilities were built in appropriate locations. Daily parades were a part of the life of the camp. The marchers also took steps to prevent their movement from being captured by Communist Party organizers. The party was forced to withdraw and to watch the movement engage the establishment on its own. On June 15 the House of Representatives passed the Patman Bonus Bill. Two days later the Bonus Army massed outside of the Capitol Building, 10,000 in number, where the Senate was meeting to consider the bill. The veterans were hoping that their presence and their misery would persuade Congress to make immediate payment of the bonus money to the mostly unemployed veterans. But the Senate, unlike the House, was still in the hands of fiscally conservative Republicans. The vote came and with it defeat for the Patman bill by a margin of 62 to 18. Stunned, the veterans responded by singing ‘‘America’’ and then returned to their camp. After the vote, congressmen eager to impress voters in a campaign year voted $100,000 for transportation of the veterans to go home or to some desired

108 |

Bonus March

The arrival at the Capitol of a bonus petition signed by over a million veterans, 1922. [National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-51958]

location. The goal was to disperse them and get them out of the capital. Meanwhile other groups of veterans led by more radical leaders were arriving. One contingent led by Royal W. Robertson who had arrived after the defeat of the Patman bill organized a ‘‘death march’’ across the Capitol grounds. As long as the marchers were moving their actions were legal. Frightened, Vice President Charles Curtis ordered the Marines to clear the grounds of the Capitol Building, apparently ignorant that he had no authority for such an order. On July 14 Congress adjourned. Tensions began to build as the president sought to rid Washington of the marchers. By July 28 the government began to move. In one brief five-minute incident a radical splinter group of marchers engaged Chief Glassford and other

officers. They then broke up and dispersed. Several hours later a brawl erupted between veterans and the police. The police fatally shot two of the veterans. The deaths prompted President Herbert Hoover to order the army to drive out the marchers. Shortly before five o’clock in the afternoon, General Douglas MacArthur, chief of staff of the U.S. Army and in command of the 12th Infantry Regiment from Fort Howard, Maryland, massed his troops with Major General George S. Patton’s 3rd Cavalry Regiment on Pennsylvania Avenue. The street was lined with thousands of civil service workers who had left work to see the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. Ignorant of the fact that this was to be an attack on them, the Bonus marchers at first cheered the troops. However, when

Brazilian Expeditionary Force Veterans the cavalry charged, the civil service workers booed the military, calling the act shameful. The troops quickly drove out the veterans and burned their camps. Hundreds of veterans were hurt, two were killed, and others were gassed, which also killed two babies. General MacArthur destroyed the Anacostia camp despite orders from President Hoover not to attack it. President Roosevelt continued to oppose the Bonus as had Hoover, but the New Deal programs—especially the Civilian Conservation Corps that hired ex-veterans to direct the boys in their camps—alleviated their misery along with the nation’s. Only in 1936 was the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress able to override Roosevelt’s veto and grant the early payment of the bonuses. Andrew Jackson Waskey

Further Reading Best, Gary Dean. FDR and the Bonus Marchers: 1933–1935. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1992. Daniels, Roger. The Bonus March: An Episode of the Great Depression. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1971. Dickson, Paul, and Thomas Allen. The Bonus Army: An American Epic. NY: Walker & Co., 2004. Diehl, James M., and Stephen R. Ward. The War Generation: Veterans of the First World War. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1975. Lisio, Donald J. President and Protest: Hoover, Conspiracy and the Bonus Riot. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1974. Lisio, Donald J. President and Protest: Hoover, MacArthur and the Bonus March. Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press, 1994.

| 109

Rawl, Michael J. Anacostia Flats. Baltimore, MD: Publish America, 2006. Waters, W. W., and William C. White. B.E.F.: The Whole Story of the Bonus Army. Whitefish, MT: Kissinger Publishing, 2007. Webb, Robert N. The Bonus March on Washington, D.C., May–June 1932: American Veterans Demand Cash Payments Due Them. NY: Watts, 1969.

BRAZILIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE VETERANS During World War II, some 26.000 men and women of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (BEF) were incorporated in the 5th U.S. Army where they served in Italy. The contact with American forces was paramount in defining their own distinctiveness in contrast with other veterans of the Brazilian Army who did not fight overseas. Once in action in Italy, these men received U.S. training, weapons, signals equipment, vehicles, food, and uniform supplies. Most important of all was the influence exercised on the relations between enlisted men and officers. In the 1940s, the usual methods of treating enlisted personnel in the Brazilian Army were derived from nineteenth-century practices which enforced an extremely rigid disciplinary system. The majority of the rank and file was composed of draftees. For the first time, Brazilian soldiers were decently fed and clothed in comparison to their superiors. Veterans attributed these more equalitarian practices adopted in Italy to their cooperation with the U.S. Army. In spite of the modernizing trends observed during the campaign overseas,

110 |

Brazilian Expeditionary Force Veterans

the Brazilian military leadership felt that the new practices and customs acquired in Italy could be detrimental to the integrity of discipline and prestige of noncombatant officers. The returning veterans were forbidden to talk about their experience, and the wearing of the U.S.-styled Brazilian Expeditionary Force uniforms and insignias (which differed from regular Brazilian standards) was allowed for merely eight days after the arrival of each veteran. Many of these men felt their experience was being pushed into oblivion. One of the reasons was that their superiors who didn’t go to war felt threatened by being questioned by men of lower rank who had underwent actual combat experience in modern conflict. An example can be drawn from the decorations awarded to men who had distinguished themselves in combat: although a number of Brazilian draftees received U.S. Bronze Stars and Silver Stars, their national decorations were only given several years after the war, with little impact on their military careers and at a time when the majority of combat veterans was already back in civilian life. Besides, Brazilian infantry troops were not allowed by their superiors to receive the American Combat Infantryman Badge. Most Brazilian veterans were demobilized on board the transport ships during their return trip home As the veterans returned home, they formed organizations to guarantee their basic rights. The most important of these was the Association of Brazilian Ex-Combatants (AECB), formed in October 1945, assembling veterans of the 5th U.S. Army alongside U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force men who had fought in the South Atlantic Campaign.

Participation in combat operations overseas as well as their specific identity as veterans of both the Brazilian and U.S. armies encouraged the separation of the AECB into another major group that would accept only veterans of Italian Campaign from the Army and Air Force (veterans from this organization operated a fighter squadron under the 12th U.S. Army Air Force). The National Association of Brazilian Expeditionary Force Veterans (ANVFEB) was created in 1963 and its chapters are extended throughout most of Brazil’s territory. In some cities the BEF veterans maintained their link to the AECB, since the number of territorial army vets was so low that the creation of ANVFEB chapters did not make sense. The separation of the veterans’ organizations was also due to the dissatisfaction of many 5th Army vets with the extension of their benefits to men who had not shipped overseas. A number of Brazilian veterans faced hard times once they reentered civilian life. Since the war’s end, a vast set of veterans’ benefits had been created, although red tape, ill will, and sometimes the very ignorance of the veterans about their rights offered obstacles to the fulfillment of assistance policies. Thousands of veterans inhabited rural areas and small towns, hundreds of miles from the urban administrative facilities. Adjustment problems began to appear immediately after demobilization. Many veterans, attempting to return to their prewar civilian occupations, found their jobs had been taken. Even if mechanisms of assistance were in existence, the relatively small number of veterans did not represent a social stratum strong enough to validate careful governmental

Bunker Hill Monument attention. To a great extent, veterans had to rely on their personal connections with politicians and public servants in order to assure the completion of legal benefits amidst the intricate public administration bureaucracy. No psychological support was offered to the demobilized men who suffered from neuropsychiatric disorders after months in the front lines. The participation of Brazilian soldiers in combat operations during World War II under U.S. guidance was an important factor in defining postwar relations between the two countries. Officers of the professional corps who went to war realized for the first time what it meant to fight alongside a modern army from an industrialized nation. This perception would strongly influence their postwar political militancy in favor of a close alliance between Brazil and the United States, especially in the Cold War era. However, many of the expectations held by Brazilians about mutual cooperation that had been accorded with the Roosevelt administration were frustrated after the president passed away in April 1945. Subsequent American governments were less sensitive to the pleas of Brazilians as they were not aware of Brazil’s contributions to the war effort. In the year 2000, ANVFEB had 10.000 members spread all over Brazil, with about 2,000 more men from other BEF veterans’ associations. As of 1988, veterans were allowed a special pension that equals the pay rate of a 2nd Lieutenant in active duty with the army. Their badge of pride is the Smoking Cobra divisional patch, an original concept of Walt Disney Studios. Cesar Campiani Maximiliano See also World War II Veterans; Hispanic American Veterans

| 111

Further Reading McCann, F. D. The Brazilian American Alliance 1937–1945. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973. McCann, F. D. Soldiers of the Pa´tria. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003.

BUFFALO SOLDIERS See African American Veterans, Civil War

BUNKER HILL MONUMENT The Bunker Hill Monument (part of Freedom Trail and Boston National Historic Park—see Appendix 1, Massachusetts) is one of the nation’s most familiar monuments. Although known as the Battle of Bunker Hill, the battle actually took place on June 17, 1775, on the smaller Breed’s Hill in Charlestown, Massachusetts, which is where the current monument stands. The first monument erected on the site was commissioned by Charlestown’s King Solomon’s Lodge Masons to honor Boston patriot Dr. Joseph Warren ‘‘and his associates’’ killed during the battle. Dedicated on December 2, 1794, the wooden column 18 feet high bore the inscription ‘‘J. W. aged 35’’ and cost $1,000. In 1822, William Tudor, editor of The North American Review and biographer of James Otis, proposed building a larger and more permanent structure. When three acres of the battlefield came up for sale, Captain John Warren (a descendant) purchased them and put them at the disposal of several prominent citizens including Daniel Webster, Colonel

112 |

Bunker Hill Monument

Thomas Perkins, and Edward Everett. In 1823, they joined Tudor to form the Bunker Hill Monument Association. They pointed out the nation’s failure to honor its Revolution and war heroes. Arguing that ‘‘no monument designates the ever-memorable heights of Charlestown, or Saratoga, or the plains of Trenton, Monmouth, or Yorktown. No statue, not even of Washington, adorns the Capitol,’’ they had no trouble persuading the Massachusetts legislature to incorporate the association to raise funds so that ‘‘as the plains of Massachusetts were first stained with the blood of patriot—THERE should be reared the FIRST PILLAR of the Republic; and what spot more sacred, more appropriate, and more commanding than Bunker Hill?’’ (Warren 1877, 42–43). After the association purchased the rest of the battlefield, the cornerstone was dedicated on June 17, 1825, the fiftieth anniversary of the battle. The guest of honor was the Marquis de Lafayette, visiting the United States in 1824–1825, who assisted the grandmaster of the Freemasons, Monument Association President John Brooks, in laying the cornerstone. Over 200 revolutionary veterans, including 40 of the battle, participated in a celebration ‘‘unequalled in magnificence by anything of the kind that had been seen in New England’’ (Frothingham 1851, 344–45) and a parade that stretched from Boston’s bridge to Charlestown to the Boston Common. Daniel Webster concluded the day with one of his greatest orations. Once established, the association appointed a Board of Artists to plan the monument. The board included Webster and artist Gilbert Stuart and adopted the design of Loammi Baldwin, a noted engineer. It was to be a 220 foot granite

obelisk furnished from a quarry in Quincy, Massachusetts. Solomon Willard was the architect who supervised the actual construction. Originally, the state of Massachusetts offered to contribute prison labor to provide the stones, but ultimately paid $7,000 in cash to hire workers. Despite this impressive start, the Monument Association had trouble raising money. By 1829, it was $25,000 in debt to Boston’s Suffolk Bank and the monument was only 37 feet tall. Four years later, the Bank insisted on repayment of its debt, which had risen to $30,000, which by 1838 required selling off nearly all the battlefield except for the area immediately around the monument itself. Major donors enabled the monument to be finished at its originally planned height at a cost which, over 18 years, was over $370,000 rather than the $100,000 originally budgeted. The father of Amos Lawrence, principal owner of the textile mills at Lowell that were the nation’s largest manufacturing enterprise, had fought at Bunker Hill. Lawrence began to donate money in 1830, but made his largest gifts, including a pledge of $10,000 in 1833, contingent upon grass-roots support as he wanted the monument to be funded by the people in general rather than a handful of wealthy men. His 1833 donation accompanied a request to the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association, an organization founded in 1795 by Paul Revere to help working people; they responded with $20,000. Lawrence also put up $10,000 in 1840 upon learning that Sara Josepha Hale, formerly editor of Boston’s Ladies’ Magazine and Literary Gazette and after 1834 of Godey’s Lady’s Book, the nation’s most popular women’s magazine at the time, would organize a fair, to be held at Bunker Hill in September

Bunker Hill Monument 1840. The fair, which raised $33,000, coincided with a huge Whig Party convention to rally support for presidential candidate William Henry Harrison shortly before the election. Organized by Massachusetts Senator Webster, it drove home the fact that the monument had all along been sponsored exclusively by National Republicans and Whigs who hoped to call attention to the contribution of New England to the nation’s founding at a time when that region was increasingly marginalized by the Jacksonian Democrats. (They had no trouble analogizing the tyranny of ‘‘King Andrew,’’ as they depicted President Jackson in their political cartoons, with that of George III). As for Hale, she had begun raising money for the monument as early as 1830, arguing that women needed to demonstrate their patriotism and take an appropriate role in public life, which was originally opposed by some members of the Monument Association until the cash came rolling in. As she wrote following the fair: ‘‘When exerted in their proper sphere . . . we question if there was ever seen under the sun, such an example and proof of woman’s industry and ingenuity’’ (Godey’s Ladies Book, November 1840, 237). The final $10,000 came from philanthropist Judah Touro of New Orleans, and Louisiana delegates to the Whig convention purchased the scale model of the monument at the fair to present to him. Touro had been born on the eve of the battle to a wealthy Newport, Rhode Island, Jewish merchant. After being orphaned his uncle Moses Michael Hays employed him in Boston but fired him for wanting to marry his daughter. Touro then moved to New Orleans where he became one of the nation’s wealthiest merchants and

| 113

greatest philanthropists—his detailed will, probated on his death in 1854, left over half a million dollars to over a hundred charities, Jewish, Christian, and nondenominational. Touro appreciated military sacrifice—he was nearly killed at the Battle of New Orleans. He made his gift conditional on its anonymity, but the Monument Association proudly publicized his contribution to his chagrin, even incorporating a poem in his honor at the dedication ceremony. The dedication occurred on June 17, 1843, with President John Tyler, the entire cabinet, the governors of all the New England states, and 13 surviving veterans of the battle in attendance along with thousands of others. Daniel Webster, who only a month before had resigned as secretary of state due to disagreements with Tyler, made the oration a plea for conciliation within both his party and the nation: ‘‘Woe betide the man who can stand here with fires of local resentment burning, or the purpose of fermenting local jealousies and the strifes of local interests festering and rambling in his heart . . . this column stands on Union. I know not that it might keep its position, if the American Union is made the conflict of human passions, and in the strife of parties and faction, should be broken up and destroyed’’ (Webster 1895, 140). The Bunker Hill Monument Association maintained the monument and grounds until 1919 when it was turned over to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 1976 the Bunker Hill Monument was transferred to the National Park Service and became a unit of the Boston National Historical Park. Every year, on the Sunday before June 17, the Bunker Hill Parade is held in Charlestown; on the 17th itself, a procession moves from

114 |

Butler, Smedley (1881–1940)

St. Francis’s Church, where an ecumenical service is held, to the site of the battlefield, to the monument. An exhibit lodge built adjacent to the monument in the late-nineteenth century houses a statue of Warren and a diorama of the battle. A statue of Joseph Warren may also be found on the battlefield near the monument. In front of the obelisk is a statue of Col. William Prescott, who is supposed to have uttered the famous phrase, ‘‘Don’t fire ’til you see the whites of their eyes!’’ William Pencak See also Revolutionary War Veterans

Further Reading Covart, Elizabeth. ‘‘Live Free or Die: A Generation Remembers the Battle of Bunker Hill.’’ Senior Honors’ Thesis, Penn State University, 2003. Frothingham, Richard Jr. The History of the Siege of Boston. Boston: Little Brown, 1851. Warren, George Washington. History of the Bunker Hill Monument Association. Boston: James Osgood, 1877. Webster, Daniel. The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster. Boston: Little, Brown, 1895.

BUTLER, SMEDLEY (1881–1940) An officer in the Marine Corps, ending up with the rank of major general, Smedley Butler was, at the time of his death, the most decorated member of the Marine Corps in the history of the United States. Smedley Darlington Butler was born on July 30, 1881, at West Chester, Pennsylvania, the oldest of three sons of Thomas Stalker Butler, a longtime member of the U.S. Congress, and Maud

(ne´ e Darlington). Smedley Butler was educated at the West Chester Friends’ High School and the Haverford School. In 1898, with the outbreak of war between the United States and Spain, the teenager was eager to join. Because he was only 16, he lied about his age and gained a commission as a second lieutenant in the Marines. He was sent to serve at Guantanamo in Cuba and was not involved in combat operations. As a member of the U.S. Marines, Butler was sent to China in 1900 to serve with the international contingent fighting against the Boxer uprising. He was involved in the storming of the Chinese section of the city of Tientsin (modernday Tianjin), being shot in the thigh. He was later shot in the chest at San Tan Pating. For his bravery in China—he rescued an injured officer at Tientsin—he was awarded the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and commissioned as a captain, and later promoted to major. In 1903 Butler was involved in protecting the U.S. Consulate in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, and from 1909 until 1912 saw action in Nicaragua. There he was involved in the relief of the city of Granada and later served in defense of the Isthmus of Panama. Soon afterwards, he returned to Nicaragua and took part in the attack on Coyotepe in October 1912, later being posted to Panama. In 1914 Butler was involved in the U.S. occupation of the Mexican port city of Veracruz. For distinguished conduct on April 22, 1914, at Veracruz, Butler received the Medal of Honor. The citation noted that he ‘‘was eminent and conspicuous in command of his battalion. He exhibited courage and skill in leading his men through the action of the 22d and in the final occupation of the city.’’ On October 24, 1915, Butler was posted to Haiti where he took part in

Butler, Smedley (1881–1940)

| 115

Retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler exhorts the Bonus March veterans in Washington to stay until the bonus has been paid, July 19, 1932. His speech was received with wild applause. [AP Photo]

the U.S. occupation of the country. On November 17, 1915, he was again awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions against the Cacos in that country. This made Butler only the second marine to receive two medals of honor for separate incidents. In World War I, Butler expected to be given a combat command on the Western Front. However, although a brigadier general at the age of 37, he was put in command of Camp Pontanezen at the Atlantic port of Brest where troops from the American Expeditionary Force disembarked on their way to the front. Butler served there with great efficiency and earned the nickname ‘‘Old Duckboard’’ because of his use of wood in tents to stop soldiers sleeping in mud.

He received the Distinguished Service Medal from both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy for this, as well as the French Order of the Black Star. From January 1924 until December 1925, Butler served as director of public safety in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the behest of mayor Frederick Kendrick. Philadelphia was notorious for violating Prohibition, and Butler was chosen to put a stop to the illegal liquor business there. For this he was granted leave from the U.S. Marine Corps, with the permission of President Calvin Coolidge, and managed to clean up the city. However, Kendrick fired him when he raided two speakeasies favored by the local elite.

116 |

Butler, Smedley (1881–1940)

Back in the marines, Butler commanded the Marine Expeditionary Force in China from 1927 until 1929. There he had the task of protecting U.S. citizens and property during a time of civil war. He was promoted to major general at the age of 48, but in 1931 he was given a court-martial after the Italian government complained that Butler recounted a story that Benito Mussolini had been involved in a hit-and-run incident in which a child had been hit by the dictator’s car. The move was partly instigated by President Herbert Hoover, and Butler became the first general officer to be placed under arrest since the end of the American Civil War. Butler subsequently apologized and the court-martial was canceled. Hoover’s dislike of the general resulted in Butler not being appointed as commandant of the Marine Corps, and Butler retired on October 1, 1931. Butler ran for the U.S. Senate in the primary for the Republican Party in Pennsylvania in 1932 but was unsuccessful. Curiously Huey Long, the maverick governor and then U.S. senator from Louisiana, wrote in his book My First Days in the White House that if he were elected president, Butler would be his secretary of war. Butler also supported and spoke to the World War I Veterans who undertook the Bonus March to Washington, DC, in July 1932. In 1934 Butler reported to the U.S. Congress that some anti-Roosevelt businessmen, who claimed to speak for the American Legion—which was not true—were canvassing for a military coup to overthrow the president. Butler testified that some people had asked him to lead the conspiracy, offering him the role of a military dictator. Some men had indeed made this suggestion, but no legal action was taken. By this time

Butler was a prominent public speaker around the United States, especially at pacifist rallies. He carried considerable weight as he was immensely popular with veterans, to whom he extended a blanket invitation to visit him when they were in the vicinity of his home in Newton Square, Pennsylvania. His book War Is a Racket (1935) enhanced the national mood to favor an isolationist foreign policy. Butler condemned World War I, as well as U.S. interventions in Latin America and Asia in which he had participated, as caused by big business which callously made money while soldiers died. He was critical of the military industrial complex—although it had not been given that name yet—and was a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism. He died on June 21, 1940, at the Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, and was buried at the Oaklands Cemetery in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The USS Butler was named after him in 1942, as was Camp Smedley Butler Marine Corps base in Okinawa. Justin Corfield

Further Reading Butler, Smedley D. War Is a Racket. Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003. McFall, J. Arthur. ‘‘After 33 Years of Marine Service, Smedley Butler Became an Outspoken Critic of U.S. Foreign Policy.,’’ Military History 19 (February 2003): 16. Schmidt, Hans. Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1987. Venzon, Anne Cipriano. General Smedley Darlington Butler: The Letters of a Leatherneck, 1898–1931. New York: Praeger, 1992.

C soldiers to Cambodia were on April 12, 1975, for the evacuation of the U.S. ambassador, U.S. citizens, and U.S. allies in the country, and on May 12–15, 1975, when U.S. marines were involved in rescuing the crew of the ship Mayaguez, an action that cost the lives of 17 marines.

CAMBODIA WAR VETERANS Although there were U.S. military personnel captured in Cambodia during the late 1960s, and the United States was involved in covert bombing of the country in 1969, it was not until May 30, 1970, that large numbers of U.S. service personnel were deployed in Cambodia. These were sent into Cambodia to prevent supplies to the Vietnamese Communists from being sent through that country; the U.S. troops remained in the country until June 29, 1970. When the public learned of their presence, it provoked outrage and demonstrations in the United States. Congress subsequently banned the use of U.S. combat soldiers in Cambodia, and under the Cooper-Church Amendment, which became law on December 22, 1970, no U.S. ground troops nor U.S. military advisers were allowed to operate in the country, which was known as the Khmer Republic from October 1970 until April 1975. The only two other deployments of U.S. combat

As all the U.S. actions in Cambodia were by U.S. service personnel based in Vietnam, most of the U.S. Cambodia War veterans who are involved in veterans’ groups take part in those connected with the Vietnam War (see Vietnam War Veterans). However, beginning in 1979 large numbers of Cambodians themselves have migrated to the United States. These include many who served alongside U.S. soldiers or their allies, either in Cambodia itself or in units drawn from the Khmer Krom, the Cambodian minority in South Vietnam. Jean Fernandez, son of Cambodian Liberal Party politician Samson Fernandez, and brother of Cambodian Commander-inChief Sosthe`ne Fernandez, managed to escape from Cambodia in 1975 and heads

117

118 |

Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America

the Cambodian Veterans’ Association in Bellflower, California. The group serves to preserve the community and culture of Cambodian veterans and hopes to build monuments to the Cambodian veterans and the Killing Fields, where the Khmer Rouge massacred their opponents. Other groups surrounded e´migre´ politicians from the Khmer Republic. General Sak Suthsakhan (1928–1994), the last head of state of the Khmer Republic, and Thach Reng (1933– 2002), the last head of Cambodian special forces in 1975, had both fought supporting the pro-U.S. government in Cambodia and were prominent in Cambodian veterans’ groups in the United States. They were both heavily involved in the establishment of the Khmer People’s National Liberation Armed Forces to fight against the Communists in Cambodia from 1979 until 1992. Justin Corfield

Further Reading Cambodian Veterans Association. http:// www.khmernavy.com/FriendsLinks_files/ CVVision.pdf. Corfield, Justin, and Laura Summers. Historical Dictionary of Cambodia. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 2003. Shawcross, William. Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979.

CATHOLIC WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Catholic War Veterans was founded in 1935 by New York City priest Father Edward J. Higgins, formerly a World War I army chaplain and later a bishop.

He journeyed to Rome where he received the blessing of Pope Pius XI. Higgins was moved by the Pope’s plea for the need for Catholic opposition to the ‘‘isms’’ of the world, especially Communism. As such, Catholic War Veterans vigorously opposed Communism in the United States and supported the House UnAmerican Activities Committee investigations and Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to find and uproot Communism in the government. At the same time, they took a fairly liberal stand on public housing and social welfare issues that would benefit veterans and their families. The insignia of Catholic War Veterans incorporates a Celtic Cross to symbolize the preservation of Christianity through the ages, the letters US for the principles of the nation, a star for the victory achieved in World War I (and later World War II), a wreath to honor those who died for that victory, a circle to denote the reign of the church until the end of time, and an olive branch to symbolize peace. Today, while making preservation of the laws and Constitution of the United States from all who would harm them an important purpose, Catholic War Veterans’ primary activity is assistance to veterans and their families through lobbying, public service, and cooperation with other veterans’ groups. The organization also strives to instill respect for the flag, the national anthem, American values, and the traditional family, especially among young people. The 2008 convention specifically endorsed resolutions against abortion, pornography, and comedian Bill Maher (who satirizes the Catholic Church), and in favor of expanded health care for veterans and the demonstration of loyalty to the American flag and singing of patriotic

Civil War Veterans songs. A ladies auxiliary dedicated to the Virgin Mary performs much of the organization’s welfare work with disabled and hospitalized veterans. William Pencak

Further Reading Catholic War Veterans. www.cwv.org. Matthias, Sister Mary. The Catholic War Veterans and the Present World Crisis. New York: Paulist Press, 1945.

CHAPLAINS See Military Chaplains Association

CIVIL WAR VETERANS It took 18 months to disperse the 1,034,000 Union soldiers who were serving after the major Confederate armies of Robert E. Lee and Joseph Johnston surrendered in April 1865. Assistant Adjutant General Thomas M. Vincent developed the plan for demobilization. Troops would be assembled at nine points where their service records would be compiled and the back pay they were owed recorded. This was important: the major armies, General Ulysses S. Grant’s in the East and Sherman and Thomas’s in the West, had not been paid for several months. Then they would be shipped to the camp where they had been organized to receive the money, a way of assuring the army would disband in an orderly fashion. As regiments were mustered by state and region, this worked for most men: however, depleted regiments had been filled with men from different states and there were exceptions whose whereabouts and funds had to be sorted out.

| 119

The authorities knew the soldiers wanted to get home as quickly as possible: thus mass shipments in uncomfortable freight or coal cars were common. Nearly all arrived safely, except for the 1,238 out of 1,866 former prisoners of war from Andersonville, the Georgia camp, who died on April 28 when the steamboat Sultana sank on the Mississippi River near Memphis. In consequence, all other steamboats in use were inspected, overcrowding avoided, and no other tragedies occurred. Over 140,000 soldiers marched in the Grand Review in Washington, DC, on May 23 and 24. On the 23rd, Grant’s army marched in good order in new uniforms. On the 24th, Sherman’s army paraded much as they swept through Georgia—in ragged formation, many carrying their booty. White soldiers’ diaries record they were less than thrilled at being required to appear in this final parade. Black veterans, however, were relegated to serving as laborers or teamsters. Most soldiers were far more appreciative of the heroes’ welcomes they received at home after being cheered, serenaded, and fed on the way home, although some lost patience at the extended orations delivered by local notables and broke ranks before they finished. Only the First Vermont Heavy Artillery caused a major ruckus at Troy, New York, beating up some civilians, and that was blamed on the fact many were really Canadians or men who had enlisted several times to receive multiple bounties. All in all, the Union bureaucracy and transportation network that won the war did a remarkable job of mustering out 800,000 men within six months. Late pay and unpaid bounties amounted to $270 million, an average of $337 per

120 |

Civil War Veterans

The funeral for General Ulysses S. Grant in New York City, in 1885, was as monumental as the tomb that was soon erected to house his remains. [Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-74482]

man, a good nest egg with which to resume civilian life. Neither poverty, massive unemployment, nor the crime wave some had feared occurred. Many prudent soldiers bought farms or horses; others went to Colorado gold fields or the oil boom currently under way in northwestern Pennsylvania. Just as profiteers took advantage of the government in wartime, hucksters deluged the soldiers with means to relieve them of their newfound wealth. Photographers swarmed around the disembarking troops, as did elixir salesmen. With 65,000 known and many unknown cases of venereal diseases, cures were peddled for ‘‘secret’’ diseases; another popular potion promised young men they could quickly grow beards. Criminals lured men with layovers on the way home into houses of prostitution, dark alleys, and

saloons before setting on them and taking their pay. Although not numerous as a percentage of the total veterans population, with the significant increases in prison populations the large influx of men back home led to a belief that veterans were prone to crime. New York’s Sing Sing prison had 143 inmates between April and October of 1864, 412 during the same months in 1865. Arrests in New York City increased from 55,000 in 1864 to 68,000 in 1865. At the Kansas State penitentiary in 1867, 98 of 126 men had been Union veterans, and 6 Confederate. Yet to call the increases a ‘‘crime wave’’ is misleading; nearly a million young men of the age most likely to go to prison were now in civilian life, and the end of the war also increased the number of officials who

Civil War Veterans could police society. Homicide rates in New York City, for instance, declined in the decade after the war. The Sanitary Commission, a private agency with large funds that worked with government cooperation, which had cared for the soldiers’ physical and social needs during the war, helped significantly in demobilization. It offered baths and shaves on the way home and planned to put the returning men to work. New York soldiers staged a demonstration on August, 29, carrying banners stating ‘‘Looking for Bread and Work,’’ but most did not have to wait long. Veterans themselves set up an employment agency, but the Sanitary Commission’s Bureau of Information and Employment performed the function states and the federal government would in later wars. It sent out questionnaires to soldiers asking them about their skills and job situations, and sought to match these with community needs and, where jobs could not be found, local charitable institutions. Offices were established to help soldiers find jobs and assistance in all the major cities; during the year before his death in 1866, General Winfield Scott headed the New York office. To judge by the Cleveland office’s records, they were both energetic and successful; nearly two-thirds of 312 veterans who applied received a job (or a second one, if the first did not work out) after two visits. Studies of county histories in New York and Wisconsin showed that two-thirds of veterans were able to resume their former occupation; those professional men who did not usually went into politics. In rural Iowa, about 90 percent came from and went back to the farm. No economic downturn occurred after the war in the North. Nearly 300,000 new farms opened in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Valleys between 1865 and

| 121

1870. As of 1870, any Union soldier who had served 90 days was entitled to 160 acres of premium federal land under the Homestead Act. Both the improved farm machinery—notably the McCormack Reaper—and agricultural knowledge available from land grant colleges (established in 1862) made many farms more profitable. Furthermore, 360,000 new manufacturing jobs opened. Railroad mileage expanded as the transcontinental Union Pacific was completed in 1869 along with numerous other lines. The postwar market expanded exponentially for products such as canned foods (meat, vegetables, and milk), which most soldiers experienced for the first time during the war. Confederate veterans, on the other hand, usually received nothing except thanks for their efforts, and thus were ironically spared the temptations and misfortunes suffered by the boys in blue. Lee’s men could not keep their muskets, but Sherman allowed one-seventh of the Army of Tennessee to keep their guns for hunting on the way home, and Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalrymen could ride home on horseback. Many Confederates commented on the kindness of the victors, who shared food and sometimes gave them money. Grant fed the defeated Confederates and, where the rails still functioned, permitted them to return on trains. Most, however, walked or rode home on animals who were also suffering from malnutrition. Southern veterans faced a grim future. The South was the richest area of the nation in per capita wealth in 1860; in much of the region, it did not recover its prewar level until the twentieth century. One major effect of the war was to created a southern identity. Historian Michael Barton has found that during the early years of the war, the diaries of Confederate

122 |

Civil War Veterans

soldiers rarely mentioned the Confederacy or the South. By the end of the war, nearly all of them identified with the South instead of writing simply about themselves, their units, or their states. Union veterans who returned with disabilities were cared for in the network of Soldiers Homes (see Veterans’ Homes) set up by the federal government. In the South, states eventually set up homes as well although not for years: meanwhile, veterans remained in hospitals or private homes. Pensions (see also Benefits) for Union veterans included disability pensions beginning in 1862; again, southern states (see Confederate Veterans Associations) only paid smaller amounts much later. Samples of pension records indicate the principal medical problems encountered in the service. Chronic diarrhea, some variant of which killed many soldiers during the war, was the most common disease, followed by heart disease, rheumatism, and the effects of gunshot wounds. Mental problems, designated by various synonyms for ‘‘insanity’’—unsound mind, affection of mind, brain trouble, nervous debility, nervous prostration, mental impairment, mental derangement—were roughly equal in number. The government, however, frequently denied pensions to those who suffered from alcoholism, blaming their symptoms on that rather than military service. Veterans with venereal diseases were not eligible for pensions as this was considered the result of soldiers’ own moral failings. Even use of tobacco and excessive masturbation were used to deny veterans pensions. The principal work on the psychological problems of Civil War veterans has been done by historian Eric T. Dean Jr. and suggests what came to be called posttraumatic stress disorder after Vietnam

was indeed a major problem. After the war, a minority of veterans repeatedly suffered from fear of being killed or had multiple flashbacks that they were in battle or that the enemy was chasing them. Lack of sleep, chronic fatigue, seeing imaginary people, violence, inability to endure the company of others, and paranoia were other symptoms. Some barricaded themselves in their houses and rooms, and many even with milder cases carried guns with them for the rest of their lives. The principal difference with post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans from Vietnam was that a good number of Civil War veterans also returned severely weakened from smallpox, typhoid, malaria, measles, mumps, and digestive disorders. Many were described as ‘‘wrecks.’’ Contemporaries did not know how to deal with such veterans. At first, those who became intolerable to their families were usually put in jail. Others went to insane asylums: 267 of 411 veterans sampled who were committed to the Indiana Hospital for the Insane from 1861 to 1920 were simply considered ‘‘maniacs.’’ Doctors did not usually link their problems with military service. They considered alcoholism, followed by religious enthusiasm, and only then military service the principal causes of insanity, by a ratio of approximately 3:2:1. The first line of treatment consisted of ‘‘moral therapy,’’ a combination of labor on the farm, in the kitchen, or at the hospital if the inmate could handle it, combined with recreation such as dancing and exercise on the grounds. For hard cases, drugs were the principal medical treatment. Purgatives were applied by doctors who still held to the belief that disease was caused by an excess of blood, one of two sorts of bile, or phlegm and that the surplus noxious

Civil War Veterans Overseas | 123 fluid needed to be eliminated. Some men were bled as late as the 1880s. Tonics such as iron or whiskey supposedly built up the strength of the idle and weak. Sedatives including morphine and opium substances were the principal way of calming men down. One estimate of the number of morphine or opium addicts among ex-soldiers was 45,000 in 1879, and the nation as a whole had 200,000 by 1900. Most soldiers, however, adjusted well to civilian life. The nation perceived no veteran ‘‘problem’’ but honored Civil War veterans in parades and ceremonies and elected them to the highest political positions (see Veterans in Politics). Both states and the nation provided financial assistance where they could, to the extent that excessive pensions for Union veterans (see Pensions, Civil War) became a major political issue by the 1890s. William Pencak

Further Reading Dean, Eric T., Jr. Shook Over Hell: PostTraumatic Stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Logue, Larry. To Appomatox and Beyond: The Civil War Soldier in War and Peace. Chicago: Irving Dee, 1996. Logue, Larry, and Michael Barton, eds. The Civil War Veteran: A Historical Reader. New York: New York University Press, 2007.

CIVIL WAR VETERANS OVERSEAS After the end of the conflict, many American Civil War veterans went overseas. Some—especially Confederates—

left for political reasons. For a large number of these, the Civil War had led to the destruction of their homes and societies. Others, both from the Confederacy and the Union, were unable to settle down after the war and wanted to search for greater adventure. There were also some who decided to take advantage of their newfound skills to work overseas. Some, like Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), had served in the Confederate militia and after the war spent much of their lives in various parts of the world. A number of Civil War veterans left for Canada because of its close proximity to the United States. Many of these such as Daniel Clark (1830–1912), who was a volunteer surgeon in the Union forces, had connections with Canada or were born there. Others were already from prominent U.S. families. John Taylor Wood, the grandson of Zachary Taylor, 12th president of the United States, and also the great-nephew of Jefferson Davis, served in the Confederate forces and after the war he moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia. His son Zachary Taylor Wood became a prominent militia officer and policeman in Canada. There were also some who had no major connections with Canada. These included men like John Glenn (1833– 1886) who was from Waco, Texas, and had served in the Confederate forces but then deserted because he could not support slavery. He was in the Union forces until the end of the war, after which he became a prospector and trader in Calgary. Daniel Webster Marsh (1838–1916) also had no links with Canada but had been born in New Hampshire, becoming a sutler in the 30th Wisconsin Regiment, moving to Canada after the end of the war. Thomas Billis Beach (1841–1894), also known as Henri Le Caron, had been born in England and

124 |

Civil War Veterans Overseas

enlisted in the 8th Pennsylvanian Reserves in 1861; after the war he moved to Nashville, Tennessee, and then to Canada. Some African American slaves also went to Canada as part of the ‘‘underground railroad’’ prior to the war and helped the Union cause while there (see African American Veterans, Civil War). There were also many Confederates who left to settle in Central and South America. The main settlements were in Mexico, British Honduras (modern-day Belize), Brazil, and Venezuela (see also Confederate Veterans in Brazil; Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil)). They included Confederates such as John Randolph Tucker, who served in the Peruvian navy, and Hunter Davidson, who served in the Confederate Navy and settled in Paraguay. There were also Union veterans who served in South America, and some who remained in the U.S. Navy and later died in the region— a number being buried at the British Cemetery at Buceo in Montevideo, Uruguay, and in the British Cemetery at Chacarita, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Because of historical ties, and ease of finding work, a number of former Confederate and U.S. veterans settled in the United Kingdom. The naval agent of the Confederate states, James Dunwody Bulloch (1823–1901), remained in Britain after the war and lived in Liverpool where he found work in the cotton industry. In 1883 he wrote The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe, which was published in two volumes in 1884. He died in Liverpool on January 7, 1901, and was buried at Toxeth Park Cemetery there. John Low was born in Aberdeen, Scotland, and then moved to Savannah, Georgia, enlisting with the Georgia cavalry at the start of the war, later transferring to the CSS Tuscaloosa

and gaining a commission. He returned to Britain, lived in Liverpool, and died on September 6, 1906, being buried in the churchyard of Golborne Parish Church. Two other members of the Confederate Navy also found work in Liverpool: George Horwood, who died on October 5, 1888, and was buried at St. James’ Cemetery, Liverpool; and John Caren, who died in March 1914 and was buried at Liverpool’s Anfield Cemetery. The only other member of the Confederate Navy known to have moved to England was Michael Mars, who was born in Ireland and then moved to Bristol before finding work with the Confederates. He died in August 1878 in London. Thomas Potter and Samuel Brewer, two of the seven crew members of the CSS Alabama who are known to have been born in Liverpool, returned to that city after the war and died there in 1867 and 1886, respectively. Also in England during some of this period was Whitelaw Reid (1837–1912), who had been an aidede-camp to General George B. McClellan and went on to become owner of the New York Tribune; he died in London. A number of Civil War Veterans found work in Europe. In Gary Jennings’s novel Spangle (1988), the fictional Zachary Edge, a colonel in the Confederate Army, leaves for Russia and then for Austria, reaching Paris just ahead of the Prussian Army in 1870. Although his fictional career was undoubtedly constructed to include the turmoil in Europe in the five years after the end of the American Civil War, there were American veterans of the war who were there during some of these events. Finley Anderson, a friend of General Winfield Scott, who reported on the siege of Vicksburg for the New York Herald, was assigned to cover the Austro-Prussian War and

Civil War Veterans Overseas | 125 became famous for cabling the entire speech made by the King of Prussia at the end of the war, the first full story using the Atlantic cable, at a cost of $6,500. Henry Garrison Villard (1835–1900), who had made the mistake of telegraphing a great Union victory at the First Battle of Bull Run, also covered that war. George Washburn Smalley (1833–1916) of the New York Tribune had been attached to the staff of Major General John Fremont. He also covered the Austro-Prussian War, remaining in Europe for the Franco-Prussian War where he was the first American to report on the French defeat at Sedan. William F. G. Shanks (1837–1905), another journalist during the American Civil War, author of one of the more widely quoted accounts of the Battle of Chattanooga, also covered the Franco-Prussian War. The most famous Civil War veteran connected with the African continent was Henry Morton Stanley (1841– 1904). Born in Denbigh, Wales, when he was 18 he had arrived in New Orleans and served in the Civil War on both the Confederate and Union sides, later becoming a journalist and being hired in 1869 to search for Dr. David Livingstone, the Scottish explorer in Africa. Stanley later returned to Britain where he was knighted, and where he died. Bennet Burleigh (ca. 1840–1914) who had served in the Confederate Army, twice being sentenced to death by firing squad and being reprieved, covered the Arab Revolt for the Central News Agency and then the Sudan Campaign for the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, obtaining a scoop and being the first to report the death of General Charles George Gordon in 1885. In Australia, local historical societies have worked a good deal on locating the graves of Americans who died in

Australia, and their research has shown many Americans moved to Australia after the Civil War. These societies have located details on 145 U.S. Civil War veterans who died in Australia, some 62 being in New South Wales and 53 in Victoria. Some of their graves have now been marked. Among the men identified was Alfred Galen Crawford who served in the 4th Massachusetts Heavy Artillery Regiment during the war, went to Australia, and became mayor of Chiltern before becoming an associate of the family of the bushranger Ned Kelly. Also included was James Hardacre, who was a migrant from England where he had been active in the Chartist Movement. Working as a mechanic in the United States and serving in the Union forces, his son Herbert Freemont Hardacre became a prominent politician in Queensland, in the north of Australia. The prominent confidence trickster, Arthur Bently Worthington, also known as Oakley Crawford, was born in 1847 in New York, serving towards the end of the American Civil War, fleeing the United States because of family problems, including bigamy, and settling in New Zealand. He later moved to Australia where he spent seven years in jail before returning to the United States where he died in 1917. Three veterans of the Union forces are known to be buried in New Zealand. The ‘‘opening’’ of Japan by Matthew C. Perry had taken place in 1853—Perry himself died in 1858—and after the American Civil War a number of U.S. citizens moved to Japan for a wide range of reasons. Some, such as the fictional Nathan Algren (played by Tom Cruise) in the film The Last Samurai (2003), were to train the newly rearmed Japanese army, but many had more

126 |

Coast Guard Veterans

mundane roles. Alfred Eliab Buck (1832–1902), who was from Maine, served in the Union army in the Civil War and in 1868 was a presidential elector for Alabama, being elected himself to the U.S. House of Representatives for Alabama. He served as U.S. minister to Japan from 1897 until his death there in 1902. His body was brought back and interred at Arlington National Cemetery. Confederate General James Longstreet became a Republican after the war and U.S. minister to Turkey. There are many other veterans of both the Union and Confederate armies who also settled overseas; those named are, necessarily, only a handful of them who have come to public notice, to show the rich diversity of the life of the veterans overseas after the end of the Civil War. Justin Corfield

Further Reading Hill, Lawrence F. ‘‘Confederate Exodus to Latin America.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 39 (1936): 100–34, 161–99, 309–26. Matthews, Joseph. George W. Smalley: Forty Years a Foreign Correspondent. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973. Roth, Mitchel P. Historical Dictionary of War Journalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Weaver, Blanche Henry Clark. ‘‘Confederate Emigration to Brazil.’’ The Journal of Southern History 27, no. 1 (February 1961): 33–53.

COAST GUARD VETERANS Formed by merging the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service with the U.S. Life-Saving

Service in 1915, the United States Coast Guard has at all times been a part of the nation’s armed forces (Public Law 239 of January 28, 1915), yet because it was, during peacetime, in the Treasury Department until 1967, then the Transportation Department, and today the Homeland Security Department, it has often been overlooked or forgotten as a branch of the nation’s armed services. This situation has affected Coast Guard veterans and their perception by the general public. Coast Guard personnel, and their predecessors in the Revenue Cutter Service, have served in every armed conflict since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. In fact, they proudly proclaim themselves ‘‘the oldest continuous seagoing armed service’’ since the U.S. Navy was not created until 1798. However, those who honorably served in the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and its successor, the U.S. Coast Guard, have always been regarded as fellow veterans by those who served in the other branches of the armed forces. Veterans of the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service frequently join with veterans of other services in national veterans’ organizations. The first of these was the Grand Army of the Republic, founded in Decatur, Illinois, on April 6, 1866. Membership was limited to honorably discharged veterans of the Union army, navy, marines or Revenue Cutter Service who had served between April 12, 1861, and April 9, 1865. By 1890 the Grand Army of the Republic numbered 409,489 veterans of the ‘‘War of Rebellion,’’ among them Revenue Cutter Service veterans. Soon after the Spanish-American War ended in early 1899, discharged veterans rushed to form fraternal societies. Among these were the Spanish War

Coast Guard Veterans Veterans, the Spanish-American War Veterans, the Servicemen of the Spanish War, American Veterans of Foreign Service, the Army of the Philippines, the Veteran Army of the Philippines, the Legion of Spanish War Veterans, and many other smaller organizations. At the turn of the century, many of these groups began to merge. In 1904, the three largest groups, the Spanish War Veterans, the Spanish-American War Veterans, and the Servicemen of the Spanish War amalgamated into the United Spanish War Veterans. They would become the largest and most influential of the SpanishAmerican War societies. Membership included some of the over 600 Revenue Cutter Service personnel who served in this war. At the same time some of these veterans banded together and formed organizations that would become known as the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Membership was limited to those who received a campaign medal for overseas service during wartime. Many Revenue Cutter Service veterans had served in the Philippines, Cuba, or Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War and were eligible to join. After chapters were formed in Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, the movement quickly gained momentum. By 1915, membership grew to 5,000; by 1936, membership was almost 200,000. In 1919, a group of officers from the American Expeditionary Force formed a temporary committee to establish a veterans’ organization for those who had served during what was then called ‘‘The Great War.’’ The first organization meeting took place in Paris in March 1919; about 1,000 officers and enlisted men attended. The meeting, known as the Paris Caucus, adopted a temporary

| 127

constitution and the name the American Legion. It also elected an executive committee to complete the organization’s work. At first it considered each soldier of the AEF a member of the Legion. The executive committee named a subcommittee to organize veterans at home in the United States. The Legion held a second organizing caucus in St. Louis, Missouri, in May 1919. The American Legion, unlike the Veterans of Foreign Wars, did not require overseas service for membership, only service in a branch of the armed forces during wartime. As a result it quickly became and remains the largest veterans’ organization and since its founding has included many Coast Guard veterans. By the late 1970s, it was clear the established veterans’ groups had failed to make a priority of the issues of concern to Vietnam War veterans. As a result, a vacuum existed within the nation’s legislative and public agenda. In January 1978, a small group of Vietnam veteran activists came to Washington, DC, searching for allies to support the creation of an advocacy organization devoted exclusively to the needs of Vietnam veterans. Initially known as the Council of Vietnam Veterans, by the summer of 1979, the Council of Vietnam Veterans had transformed into Vietnam Veterans of America, a veterans’ service organization made up of, and devoted to, Vietnam veterans. Membership is open to U.S. armed forces veterans who served on active duty (for other than training purposes) in the Republic of Vietnam between February 28, 1961, and May 7, 1975, or in any duty location between August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975. Approximately 8,000 Coast Guardsmen served in Southeast Asia between 1965 and 1975. Many of these

128 |

Coast Guard Veterans

Coast Guardsmen joined this national veterans’ organization. WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) National was started in 1979 by a group of women who served together in the navy. They wanted to start an organization to share their love for the navy and each other nationwide. This organization now includes all women sea service veterans (U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, and Merchant Marines) and women on active duty today, including those women who served in the Coast Guard Women’s Reserve (SPARs) during World War II. The first distinct veterans’ organization for Coast Guardsmen was for those who had attended its academy, established in 1876 as the Revenue Cutter Service School of Instruction. In December 1887 an alumni association was established in Washington, DC. In 1914 the name of the school was changed to the Revenue Cutter Service Academy. In 1915, with the merger of the LifeSaving Service and the Revenue Cutter Service to form the U.S. Coast Guard, the school received its current name, the United States Coast Guard Academy. Regular membership in the Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association, the oldest and largest organization of Coast Guard veterans, has been open to any person who has been sworn in and entered on the rolls as a cadet, U.S. Coast Guard, for the full and regular course prescribed for his or her class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, whose service has not been terminated under other than honorable conditions and whose class has graduated. Not long after Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867, the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service began patrolling the Bering Sea. In 1895

those patrols became formalized as the Bering Sea Patrol. In 1975, 60 years after the Revenue Cutter Service merged with the U.S. Life-Saving Service to form the Coast Guard, Coast Guard members who sailed the Bering Sea in the 1920s and 1930s decided to form a group called the Bering Sea Patrol Veterans Association. Since then, veterans of the Bering Sea Patrol have been gathering to swap sea stories. In 1964 the Bering Sea Patrol was renamed the Alaska Patrol. It became obvious to the membership that they needed to open their doors to any who had served the Coast Guard in Alaska, thus the name changed to the Bering Sea Patrol-Alaska Veteran Reunion Association. Their common bond is that they served at least 21 days of duty in Alaska or Alaskan waters. There are also associate members who are friends and/ or widow/widowers of former regular members. This group is currently considering a name change to U.S. Coast Guard Alaska Veterans Reunion Association. In the spring of 1977, Andrew Wall, George F. Thometz, Marion ‘‘Gus’’ Shrode, and Norman L. Horton, all retired Coast Guard aviators, informally organized a fraternal association open to all pilots who had flown or were flying Coast Guard aircraft. The organization, called the Ancient Order of the Pterodactyl, was later expanded to include all personnel who flew in Coast Guard aircraft under official orders. Only those who have willfully placed themselves in harm’s way and have known that innermost feeling that comes from the personal experience that results in the saving of life or property can understand the bonding and uniqueness of Coast Guard aviation crew members. The Order is established as a nonprofit fraternal organization and is operated

Coast Guard Veterans within the circumscribed bylaws of its constitution. Each year, members of the organization gather at a site chosen by consensus of the members. The first gathering, now known as a ‘‘Roost,’’ was held at the Naval Station Officer’s Club in Long Beach. Since then annual conventions have been held each year at different places around the country. From that humble beginning in 1977, today’s organization has grown to over 1,200 members. Membership is comprised of active duty officers, enlisted, retired, and former Coast Guard Aviation personnel, and supporters who are actively engaged in the pursuit of all of its objectives. Considerable emphasis has been placed on recognizing the accomplishments of the current Active Duty Aviation Force, continuing the enlargement and perpetuation of Coast Guard aviation history within the service, and continuing support of Coast Guard Aviation at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida, and at other appropriate museums. At the ‘‘Roost’’ in Traverse City in September 2006, the membership opted to change its name to the Coast Guard Aviation Association (and retained the former official name, The Ancient Order of the Pterodactyl, as a nickname) along with the completion of all the requirements to become a 503C nonprofit organization (no longer a fraternal organization). The U.S. Coast Guard has participated in every American war, declared and undeclared, since 1790. Its combat veterans have contributed outstanding service, and many paid the ultimate price for safeguarding the freedom of the nation. Coast Guard veterans of those wars joined the inclusive veterans’ organizations listed above. However, in July

| 129

1985 the Coast Guard Combat Veterans Association was founded as a nonprofit corporation of active duty members, retired members, reserve members, and honorably discharged former members of the U.S. Coast Guard who served in, or provided direct support to, recognized combat situations while serving as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard Combat Veterans Association is dedicated to extending the knowledge of the Coast Guard’s service and participation in those significant historical events in U.S. history. Three years after its founding, the Coast Guard Combat Veterans Association created an auxiliary, made up of spouses of members in good standing. A handful of Coast Guard Vietnam veterans who gathered to march in the July 13, 1986, veterans’ parade in Chicago became convinced that the Coast Guard should have its own organization for service veterans which would permit open dialogue and promote camaraderie. They formed the Coast Guard Sea Veterans of America. Membership would include all current and past members of the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, and U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. Having sea duty is not a requirement. The Coast Guard Sea Veterans of America is an organization that provides a social forum for current members and veterans of any Coast Guard duty station, be it air, sea, shore, or office and from any time period. In 1998 Doak Walker, a retired chief radioman in the Coast Guard, formed the 255-foot Owasco Class Cutter Sailors Association for all those Coast Guard veterans who had served aboard this class of vessel. The last of the 13 vessels of this class were taken out of service in 1974. With a dwindling membership

130 |

Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations

base, the organization broadened it membership in 2007 to include all veterans who had served on ocean station vessels. It is now know as the Ocean Station Veterans organization. Large Coast Guard vessels served on ocean stations in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans from 1940 until 1980. The Coast Guard Tug Association was founded in 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio, by Douglas O’Dell, a former seaman on the USCGC Kaw, named after an American Indian people in Kansas, to continue the camaraderie and esprit de corps of former Coast Guard tug sailors and personnel. It was also formed to create and sustain the history and heritage of all former and current Coast Guard tug vessels of any length, and the men and women who served in them, by establishing and maintaining a data base and archive of historical information regarding those ships; collecting, cataloguing, and displaying appropriate artifacts (including vessels) at designated locations to maintain a physical, visual record of said vessels available to members and the general public; and conducting association gatherings and fund raising initiatives. Its goal is to educate the public of the vital role these cutters played in search and rescue, ice-breaking for commercial shipping and maintaining aids to navigation, and to highlight the important role they played in United States’ maritime history. Coast Guard veterans, whether active in inclusive veteran organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, or distinctive Coast Guard veterans’ organizations like the Coast Guard Combat Veterans or Coast Guard Sea Veterans, have played an important role in the nation’s history. Although a smaller

number than veterans of other services, they served honorably during their time in the Coast Guard and remain active citizens in various veterans’ organizations. C. Douglas Kroll

Further Reading Evans, Stephen H. The United States Coast Guard 1790–1915: A Definitive History. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press, 1949. Johnson, Robert Erwin. Guardians of the Sea: History of the United States Coast Guard 1915 to the Present. Annapolis, MD: United States Naval Institute Press, 1987.

COMMUNITY SERVICE OF VETERANS’ ORGANIZATIONS In addition to caring for the needs of their members, the larger veterans’ organizations have engaged in extensive community service that has had a major effect on American life. Many of these programs combine both altruism and community spirit with a desire to gain goodwill among the general population, to ensure that memories of their wartime sacrifices and deeds are perpetuated, and also to instill values of patriotism, especially among younger Americans. As the largest veterans’ organization, the American Legion has led the way in these programs.. National Commander Hanford MacNider was a prime mover here, with what was called the ‘‘Iowa idea.’’ He argued that otherwise it would ‘‘look like they were just looking for handouts’’ and persuaded that state’s department to enact a rule that every post

Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations ‘‘must each year put over at least one unselfish, conservative, and worthwhile endeavor or have their charter taken away from them’’ (Pencak 1981, 280). During the 1920s and 1930s, the Legion frequently criticized left-wing educators and received bad publicity for interfering in school affairs. It realized that developing positive programs of its own would be less controversial and, indeed, praiseworthy. In 1921, the Legion began cooperating with the National Education Association in running National Education Week in the schools. Two years later, posts began to sponsor Boy Scout troops. Legion participation in campaigns to end illiteracy that decade perfectly fit its program that immigrants needed to be taught American patriotic values. In 1926, the National Convention adopted the Iowa idea and suggested swimming pools, playgrounds, libraries, and parks as desirable activities. By 1941, 30 percent of Legion posts sponsored Boy Scout troops. Many of the posts which were too small or poor to sponsor activities merged with other community organizations or neighboring posts to do good. One post in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, for example, with only 15 members built a playground; organized an emergency relief unit; sponsored vaccinations, a health campaign and relief work among the poor; supported the town library; and organized baseball, volleyball, and basketball teams in addition to handling 32 veterans’ claims and finding 8 jobs in 1931 alone. Foreign posts where American veterans overseas belonged to the Legion were especially active. The Legion has maintained posts in London, Paris, Rome, Havana (before 1959), Central American and Caribbean countries, Poland, and Turkey. Many of these

| 131

veterans worked for U.S. corporations. In Tientsin, China, veterans in the interwar period held sweepstakes that enabled them to build tennis courts, a bowling alley, a library, an auditorium, and contribute liberally to relief efforts. Junior baseball was the Legion’s most famous and poplar activity. It was the brainchild of K. D. Munro of South Dakota, the first state to implement the program in 1925. Within a year, 16 states had followed, the first championship going to a team sponsored by an allwoman post. By 1930 it was nationwide, included a half million boys, and culminated in the Junior World Series. Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landes was a big supporter and frequently threw out the first ball at the series, and the major leagues kicked in $20,000 a year to defray expenses. As ‘‘Stub’’ Allison, the director of the program in South Dakota, commented, ‘‘you will catch them when they are just a bunch of clay in your hands,’’ and turn them from ‘‘a bunch of softies’’ into ‘‘a bunch of fellows who can meet competition at all times . . . . How can you teach Americanism with a pencil and paper? . . . When the gong rings again [note the boxing metaphor] as it did in 1917, maybe these little cookies will go in there and do their stuff’’ (Pencak 1981, 284). Beginning in 1935, the Legion added the Boys State (and also subsequently the Boys Nation) program. Representatives from all the states who won Legion school awards met each year in imitation of their state and national governments, with some boys going to a national meeting in Washington, DC, each year. Here, too, the Legion was in the forefront of realizing that learning by doing was frequently far more effective than

132 |

Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations

classroom instruction. Again the motive was patriotism: ‘‘if the American Legion obtains the confidence of our boys, those same boys will stand by the principles of the Legion’’ (Pencak 1981, 287). Nevertheless, the Legion sponsors thousands of essay contests on patriotic topics and awards medals in schools throughout the nation. The Legion also turned its attention to immigrants. Upset that previously immigrants who could neither speak English nor knew much about their new home were obtaining citizenship, the Legion gained the support of judges to require basic knowledge of civics and American history as a prerequisite for naturalization. The Legion then had these judges preside over ceremonies where numerous new Americans would take their oaths at once and be duly impressed with the importance of the step they had taken. Community service and service to veterans frequently coincided. At the Chicago World’s Fair of 1933, held at the height of the Great Depression, the Cook County Council of Legion Posts lobbied to have unemployed veterans put to work at the fair, with the result that 39 percent of those employed were ex-servicemen, and of these 80 percent belonged to the Legion. They sold tickets to fair events for a commission; 38 Legion bands offered entertainment at various times; the Legion operated an information booth, ‘‘Legion House,’’ to inform people about the organization; and provided auxiliary policemen for the inevitable crowd control, capping it all off with a grand parade in Soldier Field. Conservation was another area in which the Legion, especially in Minnesota, was active. As power companies proposed to dam rivers and flood much of the Quetico Superior Forest on the

Canadian Border, the Legion lobbied with the Quetico Superior Forest and the Izaak Walton League to preserve ‘‘the only remaining vast wilderness area in the central part of North America, blessed with international historical values, rare scenic qualities, and unique recreation facilities.’’ Instead of fending off Communists and Socialists, it had to refute charges by the Minnesota Power and Light Company that they themselves favored these doctrines, but stood fast and insisted they would ‘‘fight to Doomsday if necessary to resist the fat-fingered Midases who would bring our forests and streams under the sway of the dollar sign.’’ The Legion’s efforts paved the way for what is now a multimillion acre international forest (Pencak 1981, 292). The creation of the National Archives in Washington, DC, also owes much to the Legion, which secured a congressional appropriation of $7 million in 1926 to construct the building on the Mall. The American Historical Association paid tribute to the Legion for ‘‘cordially and effectively pushing the matter.’’ Instead of lobbying for a conventional national World War I monument, the Legion argued that keeping the records safe that veterans would need for their pensions and that would preserve the memory of their deeds would be the most useful tribute possible. (Over half of all government documents since 1776 had been generated by that war.) The Archives Building is, technically, a memorial to World War I Veterans. The Legion also became a leader in child welfare. Emma Puschner, former director of the St. Louis Board of Children’s Guardians, headed the Legion’s Child Welfare Division from 1927 to 1950. Puschner ended the policy of putting war orphans in small rural institutions and instead launched a vigorous

Community Service of Veterans’ Organizations adoption service, meanwhile employing social workers (of whom conservative Legionnaires were suspicious) to monitor the children’s welfare. She ultimately raised $73 million for the Child Welfare Endowment, which aided over seven million children during her tenure. Among other projects, she persuaded the Legion to improve juvenile court and adoption procedures. Posts elected Child Welfare Officers to keep abreast of the problems of children in their communities. Since 1954 the Legion has maintained a Child Welfare Fund which underwrites programs beneficial to children. In 1955, its first three grants went to the Delinquency Control Institute, the National Association for Retarded Children, and the National Society for the Prevention of Blindness. The Legion has also been active in disaster relief. Inspired by impromptu actions of posts during tornadoes in Indiana in 1923 and a mine collapse in Illinois in 1924, Legion posts (and county and state units) developed plans to provide rescues, transportation, medical, and food supplies for emergencies, all the while coordinating with the Red Cross and local authorities for emergency police and fire-fighting duties. Posts performed heroically on many occasions. During the Mississippi River flood of 1927, for instance, the Ladies’ Auxiliary obtained milk to prevent deaths among children, and also tons of candy to replenish rapidly lost calories. In the 1937 floods on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, the Legion distributed 5,000 tons of food, 3,000 tons of clothing, operated thousands of boats and hundreds of radio units, and flew airplanes to aid victims. The Legion also raised a quarter-million dollars and maintained refugee camps. The Legion

| 133

set up a Disaster Emergency Relief Fund in the wake of Hurricane Camille in 1969 to aid Legionnaires and their families who were victimized by disasters. During Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Legionnaires raised money, brought materials to aid the victims, used their posts as emergency centers, and helped in reconstruction efforts. The social service programs of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and AMVETS are similar. They include sponsorship of Scout troops, scholarships, and school awards, and provide volunteer services at hospitals and for other community causes. Blood drives, the Special Olympics, and participation in campaigns against the use of drugs and alcohol by minors are important for all three organizations. AMVETS thrift stores are found nationwide to assist the poor with clothing and household furnishings. The Ladies’ Auxiliaries of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have provided much of their organizations’ welfare work. The Legion’s auxiliary’s membership grew from about 200,000 in 1921 to over a half million after World War II, whereas the VFW’s had 100,00 members by 1941. AMVETS added a Ladies Auxiliary when it was founded in 1944. The auxiliaries sprang from the war work done at home by women during World War I, when in addition to working in farms and knitting 14 million articles of clothing, they raised over $3.5 billion in war bonds. During the Depression the auxiliaries raised money for the needy through socials, dinners, and other functions and served meals to needy children and adults. In World War II they donated blood, sold bonds, and gathered scrap medal. They have sponsored blood

134 |

Confederate Veterans Associations

drives, letter writing campaigns, and USO shows to assist troops over several wars and in peacetime. Hundreds of thousand of auxiliary volunteers provide millions of hours of service at veterans’ hospitals annually. William Pencak

Further Reading American Legion. www.legion.org. AMVETS. www.amvets.org. AMVETS: Fifty Years of Proud Service to America’s Veterans. Lanham, MD:, Amvets, 1994. Bottoms, Bill. The VFW: An Illustrated History of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Rockville, MD: Woodbine House, 1991. Pencak, William. For God and Country: The American Legion, 1919–1941. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1981. Veterans of Foreign Wars. www.vfw.org.

CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATIONS Almost as soon as the surviving Confederate veterans returned home in 1865, they began to form veterans organizations. Various states and army units claim the honor of being the first to do so, but this is impossible to determine. But most shared common goals. For instance, in 1866, the ‘‘small remnant’’ of Reynolds’ Arkansas Brigade met in Little Rock, Arkansas, ‘‘to aid the destitute widows and orphans of their deceased comrades; to assist the disabled; to erect a monument to perpetuate the memory of those whose lives were given in a noble causes, and to prepare and publish a history of the brigade.’’ With a few verbal changes,

the same purposes could be found in the constitution of the United Confederate Veterans, formed in 1889. The names of many of these associations demonstrate that they were organized by company (the Washington Light Infantry Charitable Association of Charleston, South Carolina; the Richmond [Virginia] Howitzers; the Jackson Guards, former members of Company G, First Arkansas Regiment); by regiment (Third North Carolina Infantry Association; Third Georgia Regiment, Old First Virginia Infantry Association); by brigade (Cabell’s Brigade in Clarksville, Arkansas; Terry’s Texas Rangers in Austin; the first brigade South Carolina Regulators in Charleston); by city (Charleston’s Survivor Association; Confederate Relief and Historical Association of Memphis); or by county (Confederate Veterans Association of Fulton County, Georgia). Informally, Confederate veterans comprised the majority of various organizations, the most famous of which was the Ku Klux Klan, headed by former General Nathan Bedford Forrest. In the years after the war, they terrorized black citizens and their white allies, to whom they managed to affix the names carpetbaggers (for Northerners) and scalawags (for Southerners). They called themselves ‘‘ghosts of the Confederacy’’ to convince gullible blacks that they were really Confederate soldiers returning from the dead to take over the South again. Although Union forces during Reconstruction (1866–1877) tried to check this violence, it ultimately prevailed and the white South was allowed to control itself in return for Southern Democrats acquiescing in the disputed election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877.

Confederate Veterans Associations

| 135

In 1914, the Confederate Veteran Memorial was dedicated in Arlington Cemetery. It was designed by internationally famous sculptor Moses Ezekiel, who fought for the Confederacy as a cadet at the Virginia Military Institute at the Battle of New Market in 1864. [National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-91974]

Formal statewide organizations of Confederate veterans only developed later out of grass roots interest. For instance, in 1869, General Wade Hampton, who himself had founded the veterans’ society of Walhalla, South Carolina, became first president of the Survivor’s Association of South Carolina, the only statewide Confederate veterans’ society formed in the 1860s. Other states took longer. For instance, Maryland organized in 1871, Tennessee in 1876, Missouri in 1881, and Georgia in 1889. Even larger associations were formed by veterans of particular armies. The Army of Northern Virginia, in 1870, led by General Jubal Early, the primary publicist of the ‘‘Lost

Cause’’ argument, devoted its energies primarily to the erection of a statue of their late, beloved General Robert E. Lee, who died in that year. The Army of Tennessee organized in 1887 under the leadership of General P. G. T. Beauregard. The first major Confederate veterans’ association, the United Confederate Veterans (UCV), was formed at a convention in New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 19, 1889, following a call sent out by the Louisiana Division of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Louisiana Division of the Army of Tennessee, and the Veteran Confederate States Cavalry Association. Nine organizations

136 |

Confederate Veterans Associations

from Louisiana and Tennessee answered the call and sent 52 delegates who elected former Confederate General John Brown Gordon, head of the Georgia Veterans Association, as the first commander in chief. He was reelected annually until 1904, and his strong leadership was responsible for much of the UCV’s success. In its constitution, the UCV stated that its purposes were ‘‘strictly social, literary, historical, and benevolent’’ and that posts or members who brought up matters of politics and religion could be expelled. Writing of a history of the war from the Confederate perspective, and preserving its ‘‘relics or mementoes’’ along with a record of the service of every Confederate veteran was mentioned first in the constitution, followed by the intention to ‘‘cherish the ties of friendship’’ and ‘‘care for the disabled . . . the needy, the widows, and the orphans.’’ UCV adopted a mixed military and democratic organization, much as Confederate units had chosen their own commanders during the Civil War. Conventions annually elected a commander in chief, who with the adjutant general (administrative head), chief of staff, quartermaster general, and chaplain general, ran the general headquarters along with committees devoted to history, relief, finances, and monuments. Three divisions represented the regions for which the armies of Northern Virginia, Tennessee, and Trans-Mississippi (in charge of operations west of the Mississippi River) had assumed primary responsibility during the war. Each was headed by a lieutenant-general and state departments by major generals. Selfgoverning camps, bivouacs, or posts as they were variously called constituted the backbone of the organization: each

could decide on who was fit to be a member, provided he had seen honorable service during the war. In fact, the UCV resembled in both organization and purpose the Grand Army of the Republic (see entry) organized by Union veterans. To distinguish itself from the Ku Klux Klan and other groups that had given the postwar South a bad reputation for violence and lawlessness, the UCV meetings were open and frequently occurred at the same time as other meetings, with guests both male and female present. Most existing Confederate veterans’ organizations joined the UCV, although some of them also retained their own identity. At its height in 1903, it had 1,523 camps and about 80,000 members, or one-third of all surviving Confederate veterans. Since the UCV only collected $4,732.28 in dues that year (membership was 10 cents a year, allowing even the poorest veteran to join) it can be assumed about half the camps were not ‘‘in good standing.’’ They were not expelled, however, and many camps and members went in and out of good standing based on their leaders and energy. By the 1920s, the UCV had few surviving members and it held its sixtieth and final reunion in 1950. The Sons of Confederate Veterans and Daughters of the Confederacy continued to preserve the memories of the Lost Cause and still do so today. The UCV made itself known to the public each year at its annual reunion, or convention. Both cities which sought to host the reunion and private citizens collected money (approximately $70,000 each year in the first decade of the twentieth century) to entice the 80,000 to 100,000 veterans and others who came during those years to meet with old friends, show support for

Confederate Veterans Associations patriotic legislation and benefits for the unfortunate veterans and their families, and refresh the local economy. Speeches by veterans and other notables, banners bearing the images of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and other Confederate heroes, musical entertainment (‘‘Dixie’’ was omnipresent), parades, prayers, and parties were among the reunions’ activities. Revelry was encouraged by local officials like Tennessee Governor James Frazier, who in 1904 told the Nashville police to consider casualties as victims of ‘‘sun or other stroke.’’ Most of the attendees did not sit through the numerous committee reports and resolutions which made up the convention’s substantive work. In 1894, for instance, the History Committee, headed by General E. Kirby Smith, determined that the North had monopolized the history of the war and disparaged Southern motives and gallantry. (The committee especially insisted that the war was fought for states’ rights and liberty, not to preserve slavery.) It recommend southern universities establish history professorships to teach state and national history from a correct perspective. In 1899, each state appointed a subcommittee of three to examine textbooks currently used and explain any faults to authors and publishers. The committee also sponsored the 12-volume Confederate Military History, edited by Clement A. Evans, which was published in Atlanta in 1899. Veterans ultimately received pensions and disability benefits from all the Confederate states. Depending on the locality, UCV camps would either petition their state representatives or bluntly ask them how they stood on these proposals, strongly implying that they would not receive the veteran vote if they failed to support the heroes of the Lost Cause. Despite its constitution’s

| 137

ban on politics, the UCV did not consider veterans’ benefits, like the proper teaching of history and the establishment of appropriate memorials, matters of politics, but of self-evident patriotism, of right versus. wrong. The UCV never asked for money from the federal government for itself, but did lobby for increased federal benefits for Mexican War Veterans and their families, most of whom were Southern and many of whom later fought for the Confederacy. The UCV did, however, lobby unsuccessfully that the tax collected on cotton during Reconstruction after the Civil War by the federal government be returned to the states, which then (it hoped) would spend the money on causes favored by the veterans. At the central level, the UCV was not particularly successful in raising funds. For instance, after General Kirby Smith died in 1893, the entire membership only contributed $433.75 to aid his impoverished family. After 10 years of making a monument to Jefferson Davis its main memorial priority, in 1899 the UCV only had $20,000 and turned this task over to the Daughters of the Confederacy. State and local camps, however, were much more successful in working to help local hardship cases and erect monuments. In 1912, as a result of the decreasing tension between the sections, the South was finally allowed to erect a monument at Arlington National Cemetery to its fallen veterans. Although it never received a dime of federal money, or pensions, as did Union veterans, thanks to the lobbying of the Grand Army of the Republic from the federal government, the UCV was not only a principal vehicle through which the South remembered the Civil War, but also a respectable organization that came to cooperate with its union

138 |

Confederate Veterans in Brazil

Confederate veterans at a reunion in Washington, DC, in 1917. [National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-npcc-18442]

counterpart. It became an important means through which the nation as a whole came to regard the conflict as a ‘‘brothers’ war.’’ Not only were Southerners considered equally heroic by the early-twentieth century, but their cause, far from being lost, became divorced from the stigma of slavery and accepted as equally valid as the Northern struggle for union. William Pencak

Further Reading Eckert, Ralph Lowell. John Brown Gordon: Soldier, Southerner, American. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1993.

Logue, Larry. To Appomattox and Beyond: The Civil War Soldier in War and Peace. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1996. White, William. The Confederate Veteran. Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Co., 1962.

CONFEDERATE VETERANS IN BRAZIL Following the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War, several thousand Americans resolved to leave the United States in face of the occupation of southern states by Union forces. An accurate estimate of the total is unknown, although there is some agreement that between 4,000 and 9,000 set out to Brazil.

Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil) The immigrants’ quest for a new Dixieland was consonant with Emperor Pedro II’s interest in developing cotton farming in Brazil, as well as in increasing the number of skilled immigrants to a country whose population mostly consisted of black slaves. Pedro II initially encouraged the creation of several distinct colonies although the only one to really become prosperous was Vila Americana, the settlement founded by Colonel William H. Norris in the state of Sa˜o Paulo. The waves of immigration to Brazil coincided with the way the North’s policy of Reconstruction toward the South developed. The number of immigrants to Brazil was larger immediately after the war ended, as Union troops, many of them African Americans, occupied the South while former Confederates could no longer vote or hold office. Immigration fell off after 1870 as ex-Confederates began to regain political power and effectively put an end to both Northern control and black political rights. As a result, most of the American families returned to the South from Brazil. However, there were those who chose to stay. Although initially the Confederados—as the members of the colony are known in Brazil—sought to preserve their ethnic and cultural identity, over the years many of the descendants married into local families from the state of Sa˜o Paulo. Marriages between Confederados and descendants of other immigrant families that had settled in the area also became commonplace. When the original immigrants died, from 1867 on burials took place at the Campo Cemetery, as Brazilian Catholics did not allow Protestants to be interred in their burial grounds. Within a hundred years of the arrival of the original Confederates, most descendants had blended into Brazil’s ethnic melting pot. In this regard, the Americans did

| 139

not distinguish themselves from other immigrant groups to Brazil: the second and third generations were more or less indifferent about their cultural heritages and did not hesitate to embrace Brazilian multiracial and multicultural identity. For a smaller part of the Confederados, attempts to maintain a stronger connection with their original traditions persisted during most of the twentieth century. The Fraternity of American Descendants appeared in 1955. Concerned initially with the keeping of the Campo Cemetery, the fraternity nurtured further contacts with members of Confederate societies in America. The Fraternity still holds ceremonies at the Campo Cemetery and directs its efforts at tightening the ties between Confederados and descendants of Confederate veterans from America. Cesar Campiani Maximiliano See also Confederate Veterans Associations; Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil)

Further Reading Harter, C. E. The Lost Colony of the Confederacy. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2000. SCV Camp 5163. ‘‘Los Confederados.’’ www.confederados.com. Weaver, Blanche Henry Clark. ‘‘Confederate Emigration to Brazil.’’ The Journal of Southern History 27, no 1 (February 1961): 33–53.

CONFEDERATE VETERANS IN LATIN AMERICA (EXCLUDING BRAZIL) At the end of the American Civil War, many Confederates wanted to leave the

140 |

Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil)

devastated southern states, with some heading to Central and South America, although General Robert E. Lee tried to get them to remain in the South and rebuild their states. In the end the vast majority of discontented ex-Confederates remained, but 9,000 did move to Latin America in the years immediately after the war. Emperor Pedro II encouraged them to go to Brazil—which still practiced slavery—where they became known as the ‘‘Confederados’’ (see Confederate Veterans in Brazil). About 2,500 went to Mexico, about 1,000 to British Honduras (modern-day Belize), and 500 to Venezuela, with other families and individuals moving to Europe. However, as white Southerners began retaking control of their states’ governments by the mid-1870s, about 80 percent of these people returned to the United States. Some former Confederates who decided to leave the southern states headed for Mexico, moving there by land. This was the subject of the Hollywood film The Undefeated (1969) with Rock Hudson playing a former Confederate colonel leading the Southerners, their paths crossing with that of a former Union colonel, played by John Wayne. As in the film, the Confederates who arrived in Mexico found themselves in the middle of a civil war in that country. The ruler of Mexico in 1865 was Maximilian, an Austrian archduke who, with French help, had proclaimed himself Emperor in 1863. His government was keen to get Confederates to settle in Mexico realizing that they would be loyal supporters. To this end, a Confederate naval officer and author, Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury—who is honored with a statue along with Robert E. Lee and

Stonewall Jackson on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia—went to Mexico and helped draw up a plan by which Confederate emigration could be organized. The Mexican Imperial Government agreed to freedom of worship, which would encourage Confederates, the vast majority of whom were ardent Protestants, to settle in a largely Roman Catholic country. There would also be government positions, salaried posts, and land grants, with Maury being appointed as Imperial Commissioner of Immigration and distributing tens of thousands of leaflets urging Confederates to migrate. A number of high-profile Confederate military figures also decided to join the migration. The most well-known was General Jubal Early, ‘‘Old Jube,’’ who had led the raid on Washington, DC, which had reached Silver Springs, Maryland, on July 11, 1864. Others included General Edmund Kirby Smith who had been Confederate commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department; General John Magruder who commanded the Confederate army in the Peninsula Campaign of 1862; General Henry Watkins Allen, the governor of Louisiana from 1864 to 1865, the end of the war; and Sterling ‘‘Old Pap’’ Price, governor of Missouri from 1853 to 1857, and later Confederate general. These high-profile migrants encouraged many others to move to Mexico where, with money provided by the Mexican government, Henry Watkins Allen ran an Englishlanguage newspaper until his death in 1866. By this time Maury had been appointed Director of the Imperial Astronomical Observatory, with Price trying to get a military appointment under Maximilian, largely based on the reputation he had gained from his raid into Missouri

Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil) in September–October 1864. Indeed General Joseph O. ‘‘Jo’’ Shelby from Kentucky, who had distinguished himself on Price’s Raid, also went to Mexico with much of his brigade, trying to get the men who went with him incorporated into the Mexican Army. By this time Maximilian, although he was in need of soldiers, was trying to appeal to the Mexicans rather than rely on the French troops that were bolstering his army, and turned him down. Most of the Confederates who went to Mexico settled near Cordoba, southeast of Mexico City and close to the port of Veracruz, which had been Maximilian’s original base after it had been captured from the Liberal opposition led by President Benito Juarez. The land had belonged to the Catholic Church and then had been seized by Juarez, the populist and Indian president whom Maximilian’s supporters had deposed. The Confederate area became known as Carlota Colony—named after Maximilian’s wife—growing cotton, sugar cane, and coffee. The Confederate Hotel in Cordoba was the place where veterans and others met to discuss the ‘‘Lost Cause.’’ Unfortunately for the Confederates in Mexico, the war did not go well for Maximilian’s Conservatives. Following threats from the U.S. government to intervene, on February 5, 1867, the French soldiers who had been the mainstay of Maximilian’s armed forces were withdrawn. What remained of Maximilian’s army was forced onto the defensive, and on May 14, 1867, Maximilian himself was captured, being executed on June 19. The defeat of the Conservatives led to Mexican peasants attacking the Carlota Colony, and the Confederates were forced to flee soon after they had tried to make a new life in Mexico.

| 141

After the disaster of Mexico, General Jubal Early went to Canada and planned to go to New Zealand, but eventually he went back to the United States, practicing law before getting a position on the Louisiana Lottery and making a nationwide reputation for himself as the principal exponent of ‘‘The Lost Cause’’ ideology which proclaimed the Confederates had fought for noble goals such as states’ rights rather than to preserve slavery. Sterling Price returned to Missouri in ill health, having lost all his money, and died in 1867, within a year of returning to his native state. On a symbolic note, when Jo Shelby returned to the United States, he sank his Confederate battle flag in the Rio Grande River close to the modern-day township of Eagle Pass, in Texas. He was anxious that the standard would never fall into Union hands. The Confederate veterans in Mexico did not have much success, but those who went to British Honduras were able to establish a new community. Located in Central America, British Honduras owed its creation to the American Civil War—the British first appointed a lieutenant-governor, claiming land belonging to Honduras to be British in 1862, trusting the U.S. Civil War would prevent the American government from insisting on the Monroe Declaration. During the war, connections between British Honduras and the Confederate States were established with the former used for smuggling weapons. In 1865 some Confederates saw British Honduras as a far more viable option for settling than Mexico—the fact that it was English-speaking and had a largely plantation-style economy were important. An Episcopal priest, the Reverend R. Dawson, who with his family had

142 |

Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil)

moved from Mobile, Alabama, in 1861, helped many others to move there at the end of the Civil War. Initially many were Texans who had started moving in 1864, but these were later followed by many from Virginia, with B. R, Duval establishing a settlement called New Richmond. The veterans organized themselves into self-help groups, but after several years many returned to the United States. Of the Confederate veterans who did remain in British Honduras, eight families established a settlement at Forest Home, close to the mouth of the Rio Grande River. Today the settlement and the nearby cemetery are minor tourist sites. Elsewhere in Latin America, other Confederate veterans were able to establish new lives. The most successful was probably John Randolph Tucker, a naval commander who was in charge of the Patrick Henry during the clash between the Merrimac and the Monitor off Hampton Roads. In 1865 he was the last of Robert E. Lee’s major commanders to surrender to the Army of the Potomac. Tucker moved to Peru where he was, very quickly, appointed as a rear admiral in the Peruvian Navy and commanded the joint Peruvian-Chilean fleet in their war with Spain which ended in 1866. However, threats from the U.S. Pacific Squadron and also dislike of his quick promotion by Peruvians led to his resignation after only eight months as commander. He then moved to the interior of Peru where he was appointed president of the Hydrographic Commission of the Amazon, working on charting the headwaters of the Amazon to allow for an increase in steam navigation. Elsewhere in Latin America there were also small numbers of Confederate veterans. About 500 headed to Venezuela

which, curiously, in 1864 had changed the country’s name to the United States of Venezuela. In 1865 Juan Criso´tomo Falco´ n had become president, and he was happy to welcome Confederate veterans to the country. However, in December 1867 the Azul Revolution overthrew Falco´ n, forcing him to flee on June 5, 1868, making the position of the Confederates extremely difficult. Some settled in Argentina where a few found themselves fighting in the War of the Triple Alliance (1865–1870) in which Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay killed nearly the entire male population of Paraguay. Additionally, Hunter Davidson, from Virginia, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served as a lieutenantcommander in the Confederate Navy. He moved to Pirayu, southeast of the Paraguayan capital Asuncion but remained in touch with the Confederate veterans’ organizations. Some of his letters were published in some of their journals up until his death in 1913. The end of the American Civil War had found a number of officers and sailors in the Confederate Navy in various neutral countries around the world. They were worried about returning to the United States because they might be charged with piracy, and a few settled in England, Australia, and elsewhere. Apart from the film The Undefeated (1969), there were a number of novels about the Confederate ‘‘diaspora.’’ The most well known was Paul Wellman’s Angels with Spurs (New York, 1942) about General Jo Shelby leading Confederates to Mexico to fight on the side of Emperor Maximilian. Another more recent one was Garry Jennings’s Spangle (London, 1988) about a fictional Colonel Zachary Edge who served in the Confederate cavalry and was present at the surrender at

Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil) Appomattox, moving to Russia, and then to Austria, and later to France. Justin Corfield

Further Reading Coker, Elizabeth Boatwright. The Grasshopper King: A Story of Two Confederate Exiles in Mexico during the Reign of Maximilian and Carlota. New York: Dutton, 1981. Davis, Edwin Adams. Fallen Guidon: The Saga of Confederate General Jo Shelby’s March to Mexico. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1995. Hanna, Jackson, and Hanna, Kathryn A. Confederate Exiles in Venezuela. Tuscaloosa, AL: Confederate Publishing, 1960. Hill, Lawrence F. ‘‘Confederate Exodus to Latin America.’’ Southwestern Historical

| 143

Quarterly 39 (1936): 100–34, 161–99, 309–26. Jennings, Gary. Spangle. London: Frederick Muller, 1988. Rolle, Andrew F. The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965. Shalhope, Robert E. Sterling Price: Portrait of a Southerner. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1971. Simmons, Donald C., Jr. Confederate Settlements in British Honduras. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2001. Smith, Gene. Maximilian and Carlota: The Habsburg Tragedy in Mexico. London: Harrap, 1974. Wellman, Paul. Angels with Spurs. New York: Lippincott, 1942. Werlich, David P. Admiral of the Amazon: John Randolph Tucker—His Confederate Colleagues, and Peru. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1990.

This page intentionally left blank

D she was directly descended from an individual who had served during the Revolutionary War. Adopting ‘‘God, Home, and Country’’ as their motto, from the time of their founding, the DAR emphasized the dissemination of patriotism throughout the American public, promoting the teaching of patriotic ideals in American schools and advocating a greater awareness of American history. They were also firmly committed to supporting members of the American military and veterans, both at home and abroad. At the onset of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the DAR formed a Nurse Corps, under the leadership of Dr. Anita NewcombMcGee and Red Cross founder Clara Barton. More than 1,000 American women were trained to serve as nurses during this conflict. This emphasis on the part of the DAR on direct, hands-on service to the military and veterans would continue throughout the organization’s existence (see Women Veterans to 1900).

DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION In the late-nineteenth century, an enthusiasm for remembering the colonial and revolutionary past seized many members of the American public, especially the descendants of old families. Unsettled by the rapid changes taking place within contemporary American society, numerous Americans looked nostalgically back to their nation’s beginnings. Americans felt a desire to return to, and reinforce, what they perceived as the revolutionary ideals of patriotism, selfless service devotion to one’s country, and wholehearted support for the military. In 1890, a group of American women, seized with the desire to honor their revolutionary forbearers and to perpetuate conservative ideals in contemporary American society, formed the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) in Washington, DC. The organization was open to any American woman who could prove that

145

146 |

Decoration Day

From the time of the organization’s founding to the present day, the DAR has strongly emphasized service to American veterans. The DAR is the founder of Project Patriot, a group devoted to aiding American service people both in the United States and abroad, through advocacy, fund raising, aid packages, and letter-writing campaigns. In the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, members of the DAR have volunteered in community veterans’ centers, veterans’ organizations, veterans’ hospitals, and long-term care facilities. The DAR is one of the largest national groups to be involved in the Veterans Affairs Volunteer organization and is a founding member of the Veterans History Project, an organization designed to record and disseminate oral histories of American veterans. The DAR was a significant fund-raiser for the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC, and the memorial dedicated to women’s military service in Arlington, Virginia. It frequently gives awards to veterans for their valor and service. Founded to honor the military service of veterans of the Revolutionary War, over the course of more than 100 years, the Daughters of the American Revolution have sought to educate the American public about veterans’ service to the nation and to provide material aid and honors to American veterans. Holly M. Kent See also Sons of the American Revolution; Revolutionary War Veterans; Society of the Cincinnati

Further Reading Daughters of the American Revolution. www.dar.org.

Somerville, Mollie D. In Washington: The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Washington, DC: The Daughters of the American Revolution, 1965.

DECORATION DAY See Memorial Day

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS See Veterans Affairs, Department of

DEPLETED URANIUM Beginning with the Gulf War (1990– 1991), veterans’ policy has dealt with effects of depleted uranium (DU), especially in the United States and United Kingdom. Later conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and again in the Persian Gulf (Iraq 2003– ) were accompanied by intensified debate over the effect of DU weapons on veterans. Speculation on future conflicts involving Russia, Israel, Egypt, India, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China, and other countries has raised the possibility of DU’s further use. Governments and organizations differ on whether the benefits of DU weapons outweigh potential risks to veterans and civilians. DU is used to make artillery shells that are unusually hard and able to penetrate an adversary’s tanks. It is also used in tank armor to withstand conventional shells. The level of radioactivity in DU is less than natural uranium’s, with DU coming almost exclusively from uranium-238 rather than uranium-235 (which is highly radioactive). DU enters soldiers’ bodies through shrapnel

Depleted Uranium wounds, particularly in ‘‘friendly fire’’ incidents, or is ingested from breathing dust generated by weapons. Exposure to DU weapons, especially to shrapnel, results in more uranium in the urine. Disputed consequences include cancers, genetic effects on reproduction, kidney damage, and neurological effects. Research on DU’s effects began only in 1995 and has proceeded slowly and unevenly. Research is complicated by the delayed, and possibly long-lasting, nature of DU’s effects. DU’s effect on veterans has been analyzed from three perspectives. Supporters of a ban on uranium weapons argue that military usefulness has diminished as more countries have acquired DU weapons and that potential health effects are great. Advocates of DU weapons’ use argue that negligible health effects on veterans are outweighed by the weapons’ military usefulness. A middle perspective suggests vigilant monitoring of DU’s effect on veterans and caution on continued use. The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine has attempted to narrow the gap between the perspectives. The U.S. government’s response was fragmented, as acknowledged in Government Accountability Office reports. The Department of Defense’s Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses and the Department of Veterans Affairs DU Follow-Up Program adapted to pressure over DU. So did the United Kingdom’s DU Oversight Board and NATO’s information clearinghouse, the Ad Hoc Committee on DU. U.S. Congressional action included calls for further monitoring from Representatives James McDermott (WA), Jose Serrano (NY), and Bob Filner (CA). States including New York, Connecticut,

| 147

Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Washington adopted legislation aimed at monitoring veterans’ health. Several governments, including Belgium’s, banned use of DU weapons. On May 22, 2008, the European Parliament overwhelmingly (491–18– 12) passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on use from European Union members and NATO countries and supporting a global ban. (The first European Parliament resolution on DU was adopted in 2001.) The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons is composed of nongovernmental organizations, including some veterans’ organizations. The UN General Assembly’s First Committee in a December 5, 2007, resolution (passed 136–5–36) called attention to ‘‘potential harmful effects.’’ The resolution was introduced by Indonesia and drafted by the Movement of Non-Aligned States. A second similar resolution in December 2008 was supported by 141 countries. Large U.S. veterans’ organizations, such as Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion have not opposed DU’s use, although they have called for screening and acknowledged multiple health risks of service including the use of depleted uranium. A 2006 American Legion resolution called for ‘‘proper protective measures,’’ ‘‘peer reviewed scientific studies,’’ and urged that personnel be ‘‘adequately informed.’’ Activist organizations such as Citizen Soldier and Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) draw on the research of VCS board member Dan Fahey, a Gulf War veteran, and Dr. Doug Rokke, a former army health physicist who supervised 1991 DU cleanup efforts in Iraq. They emphasize the precautionary

148 |

Disabled American Veterans

principle, whereby depleted uranium weapons should not be used because of adverse health effects that cannot be ruled out. In the coming years, local, regional, and global interest groups, courts and legislatures will examine DU’s effects on veterans. Disability, diplomatic, and defense policies will reflect these examinations. Judging from past debate about DU’s effect on veterans, new information may shift the nature of the debate between perspectives, but will not be conclusive. Arthur W. Blaser See also Gulf War Veterans; Iraq War Veterans

Further Reading Fahey, Dan. ‘‘The Final Word on Depleted Uranium.’’ Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 25 (Summer 2001): 189–200. International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons. www.icbuw.org. Miller, Alexandra C., ed. Depleted Uranium: Properties, Uses, and Health Consequences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007. Nelson, Christina. ‘‘Veterans’ Mysterious Maladies: Studies Continue to Examine the Effects of Depleted Uranium on Returning Soldiers.’’ State Legislatures 34 (May 2008): 28–29.

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS See Disabled Veterans

DISABLED VETERANS Establishment of Disability Payments Before the First World War, disabled veterans were either housed in veterans’

homes or used their benefits and pensions (see Benefits; Pensions, Civil War) to support themselves in private homes or hospitals. Many Civil War veterans lost legs and arms due to amputations necessary to prevent gangrene infections that would lead to certain death. Wooden legs and arms were common sights in veterans’ parades and reunions. The sudden issue of what to do about over 200,000 wounded men who returned home from World War I presented the nation with an unprecedented problem. The war ended while just over half the troops had been sent to France: mobilization was hardly in place when demobilization began. World War I disability rates were set by the War Risk Insurance Act of 1917. Payments were not based on the type of work personnel had performed before the war, but on what was considered an average wage for all types of employment. Veterans then received a payment of $80 per month for full disability, with smaller impairments awarded proportionately less to a minimum of 10 percent. The pension for widows was $25 per month, and up to $52.50 if veterans had four or more children. Some disabilities were considered temporary, and those veterans had to return periodically to physicians to certify they still had them. The act hoped to enable veterans to live with a reasonable amount of comfort if they could not continue in fulltime employment due to injury, disease, or aggravation of a previous medical problem. The War Risk Insurance system was rooted in social policies of the Progressive Era. It attempted to replace the Civil War system of pensions, which by World War I were available to all surviving Union veterans, with the notion

Disabled Veterans

| 149

Disabled World War I veterans at Walter Reed Army Hospital, Washington, DC. [Courtesy of the Library of Congress, LCUSZ6-1812]

that all individuals and families were entitled to a living wage. Work was considered preferable to pensions if at all possible, even if the work was reduced. Between 1908 and 1920 Congress and 45 state legislatures had enacted workmen’s compensation legislation. Soldiers’ disabilities were regarded analogously: the military was treated as the employer, and all conditions were regarded as caused by military service unless they involved ‘‘willful misconduct.’’ Venereal disease and alcoholism were considered signs of personal weakness and were not compensated. The problem was that to obtain the War Risk money, veterans had to fill out a great

deal of paperwork and have their claims approved. Similarly, of 675,000 returning veterans who applied for training under the Soldiers Rehabilitation Act, under half completed training and only 6,600 were employed as a result. Schools that offered little were quick to appear to take advantage of federal dollars. During 1919 and 1920, with a national unemployment rate of 16 percent with so many troops returning and wartime production disappearing, the nation observed veterans on street corners with tin cups holding signs reading, ‘‘Help me, I’m a Disabled Veteran.’’ Until 1924, medical referees located in the 14 district offices of the War Risk

150 |

Disabled Veterans

Insurance Office and what later came to be the Veterans Bureau examined 2,200 staff and 2,600 hired physicians’ statements and rated veterans at between 10 and 100 percent disabled. When the Veterans Bureau became the Veterans Administration in 1925, about 100 regional offices took over this function. To prevent even more objections to the ratings than occurred, the VA kept the rules for rating disabilities secret until compelled to divulge them by Congress in 1933. African American veterans of World War I, most of whom had been enlisted from the southern states, had special problems obtaining compensation. Although a majority of veterans from some states, black ex-servicemen were seen only at certain times by selected doctors, who tended to dismiss mental problems. As even a 50 percent disability would provide southern blacks with income greater than the average for their race, whites feared the payments would unduly favor black veterans. By 1924, 940,000 veterans, or about one-fifth of all who had been in service, and a number equal to about threequarters of those who had seen combat, had applied for disability payments. Only about 455,000, under half, were considered sufficiently impaired to be disabled. The main reason applications were turned down was because it could not be determined if disabilities were acquired in service or whether they were preexisting (or more recently acquired) conditions. As a result, veterans’ organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion helped veterans prepare and obtain support for their claims. Political officials also lent their endorsement to candidates they believed worthy.

Before World War I, the disabled veteran was usually imagined as someone who was blind or crippled. Yet over half of the war’s veterans who were compensated suffered from heart disease, tuberculosis, or various forms of mental disease, while only 5,000 men lost limbs and under 200 were blinded. Congress passed laws in 1921 declaring that all veterans who had either tuberculosis or mental illness (see PostTraumatic Stress Disorder) were assumed to have acquired the illnesses in service, and later allowed anyone who developed these conditions within six years of discharge to consider them service-related. In 1924, any veteran with tuberculosis received at least $50 for life whether it impaired his ability to work or not. By 1927, a third of all men receiving compensation had tuberculosis, and a fourth suffered from mental illness (see also Shell Shock). The disability system established in World War I has remained in place until today. As of 2009, a 10 percent disability paid $123 per month, total disability $3,172 per month. Approximately three million veterans received disability payments. Although evidence from acquaintances of veterans is considered, the extent of most disabilities are determined by physicians considering evidence provided by other physicians. These procedures originated in the Progressive Era belief that professional services and scientific knowledge could be used to benefit both the state and individual in an objective and nonpartisan manner. Disabled veterans have formed several associations. Most prominent is American Disabled Veterans, but veterans with particular disabilities have also formed their own groups. Notable among these

Disabled Veterans are the Blinded Veterans of America and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Disabled American Veterans In 1919, as disabled veterans nationwide were at a loss to obtain jobs and medical care, men being retrained at Cincinnati’s Ohio Mechanics Institute formed the first Disabled Soldiers’ organization. They recruited as their leader Cincinnati Superior Court Judge Robert S. Marx, a disabled veteran who had captured the furthermost point achieved by the American army before the Armistice. Joining with disabled veterans at the University of Cincinnati, they formed the Disabled Veterans of the World War (DAVWW) in 1920. Recruiting veterans as he campaigned for the Democratic presidential ticket of James Cox and Franklin Roosevelt in the election that year, in 1921 Marx was elected first national commander of the organization at a meeting of about 1,000 disabled veterans in Detroit. They were representing over 17,000 veterans who had organized into hundreds of clubs and societies throughout the nation. The organization received goodwill messages from President Harding and former commander General Pershing. The parade was especially moving as amputees hobbled on crutches, others coughed incessantly from tuberculosis, and blind veterans such as the first national chaplain, Rabbi Aaronsohn, were guided by others. The DAVWW’s first action was to lobby Congress to consolidate the different government offices—the War Risk Insurance Board, the Federal Health Service, and the Federal Vocational Training Service—into the Veterans Bureau, which soon came to pass with support from the larger veterans’ organizations

| 151

such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Just as these organizations sold poppies on Armistice Day (November 11—see Veterans Day) to members of the public who wished to honor veterans, the DAVWW chose the forget-me-not as their flower. Beginning with the 1922 Convention in San Francisco, Henry Ford offered use of his automobiles to convey members to the annual meeting. The DAVWW struggled during the 1920s. It never had more than 30,000 members and had to borrow money from the Knights of Columbus and use funds donated by opera singer Ernestine Schumann-Heink, who gave benefit concerts on its behalf, to stay alive. Nevertheless, the organization maintained 53 service officers who could help veterans present their claims to the Veterans Administration. Wives, mothers, and sisters of disabled veterans, along with widows of the slain, could join the Ladies’ Auxiliary. During the 1930s, membership grew to about 40,000 as the DAVWW fought budget cuts that reduced or eliminated some benefits. An organization that had been in debt finally came up with a means of raising a large, reliable sum of money: they mailed miniature imitation licenses—Identotags—to licensed drivers and were surprised to find they received $800,000 from them. This program lasted from 1940 until 1967. World War II greatly increased the need for the DAVWW, which dropped the words ‘‘World War’’ from its title. By 1948, it trained 354 additional service officers who took courses in counseling, adjudication, law, physiology, and presentation of medical evidence. Membership increased to 105,000 by 1946, 207,000 by 1960, and 1,000,000 by

152 |

Disabled Veterans

A paraplegic veteran practices his ‘‘tight rope’’ balancing act for the stage production of It’s a Great Day at Blackstone Theater in Chicago, Illinois, 1951. The musical, which cast 20 veterans in wheelchairs, got its start as a fund-raiser for the March of Dimes. [AP Photo/Ed Maloney]

1985. The DAV’s contribution to the nation’s well-being was recognized in 1955 when its commander, the blind General Melvin J. Maas, became chairman of the President’s Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped. Veterans did not have to be disabled to join. Beginning in 1965, the DAV recruited members from the Vietnam War by sending all service personnel letters thanking them for their sacrifice and extending a free one-year membership. The DAV won support among Vietnam War veterans by lobbying for disability benefits equal to those received by Korean War veterans and World War II

veterans, which came to pass in 1966 when President Johnson signed the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act. Another crusade the DAV successfully undertook was that children of veterans who were 100 percent disabled should be given equal educational benefits— such as college expenses—as deceased personnel. Between 1969 and 2004, under the direction of Max Hart, the DAV raised over a billion dollars to give to charities for veterans, mostly through direct mailing campaigns. During the late-twentieth century, most of the DAV’s service officers were Vietnam veterans. It lobbied to make sure veterans suffering from Agent

Disabled Veterans Orange and other chemicals in that war received care, protested inadequacies in the veterans’ hospital system, and continued to insist that prisoners of war be returned home and those missing in action from Vietnam accounted for. In 1976, the year it opened a national legislative office in Washington, DC, the DAV launched the ‘‘Forgotten Warrior’’ project that began to call attention to the real problem of numerous Vietnam veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Achievements continued in the 1980s. In 1983, the organization dedicated the National Disabled Veterans Memorial, a majestic curved structure rising against the mountains in Angel Fire, New Mexico. The same year it obtained a Woman’s Advisory Commission in the Veterans Administration to better serve the needs of women veterans. Beginning in 1986, the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic has been an annual event in which blinded, amputee, or partially paralyzed veterans participate. In 1987, the DAV began to offer transportation service for disabled veterans to veterans’ hospitals and administration offices when the government itself eliminated it. In 1988, for the first time, Congress passed a law allowing veterans to appeal their disability rating to the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals thanks to the DAV’s lobbying. The DAV won its point that non-lawyers be allowed to present cases, as otherwise the organization feared it would become the tool of the legal profession and compromise the confidentiality of veterans’ records. In recent years, the DAV has successfully fought for a law that presumes illnesses that typically occurred among Gulf, Iraq, or Afghan War veterans were

| 153

in fact acquired during the respective war, and thus the sufferers are eligible for veterans’ benefits. They also obtained a review of Agent Orange cases which have been turned down. A special initiative to aid the estimated quartermillion homeless veterans was launched in the 1990s. The DAV and the auxiliary work closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs; over 94,000 volunteers have donated time to work with disabled veterans, and the Department has donated 147 vans to the DAV. When he stepped down as secretary of Veterans Affairs under Bill Clinton, Jesse Brown, a disabled Vietnam veteran himself, became director of the DAV’s Washington legislative office. All of the DAV’s services are free to veterans and their families. In addition to practical services such as visiting, transporting, and offering both personal and legal/bureaucratic counseling to veterans, the DAV is currently lobbying to erect a Disabled for Life Veterans Memorial near the grounds of the capitol in Washington, DC. As of 2009, with nearly 1,300,000 members, the DAV is the thirdlargest veterans’ organization in the United States with about half the membership of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Paralyzed Veterans of America Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) was founded in 1946 by veterans suffering from spinal cord injury and dysfunction (SCI/D). Most had obtained these injuries from land mine explosions, fighter plane accidents, or battlefield wounds. Before the war, treatment of people with spinal cord injuries was practically nonexistent: they were confined to hospital beds until they died,

154 |

Dodge, Grenville Mellen (1831–1916)

usually within a few years. Thanks to medical advances during and after the war, now paralyzed veterans live as long as others. One of the organization’s main crusades has been the removal of architectural disability. It led the struggle for ramps to access buildings and wheelchair lifts and elevators for public accommodations and transportation. PVA offers its expertise to individuals and organizations wishing to make buildings accessible. PVA supports research into SCI/D through the PVA Research Foundation and public education through the PVA Education Foundation. PVA also sponsors sports programs for veterans with SCI/D including basketball, bowling, billiards, and fishing; public education as to the nature of the disability; and disability rights in general. It also handles the legal cases of paralyzed veterans before the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. In 2007–2008, the organization counseled 23,000 veterans and their families and helped them file benefit claims.

Association for Service Disabled Veterans The Association for Service Disabled Veterans (ASDV) began in March 1986 in Palo Alto, California. Members of the Disabled American Veterans hoped to develop businesses for service disabled veterans and former prisoners of war to supplement their income and give them a greater purpose in life. It operated as a volunteer, nonprofit organization from Palo Alto for 14 years before it opened an office in Washington, DC, in 2000. Today it tries to help all the 80 million veteran families’ members in the United States. It has established programs and

services that address the areas of legislative and legal advocacy, business development, health care, and information access. Thanks to federal laws it has successfully advocated, both government and private enterprise help employ disabled veterans. William Pencak See also Blinded Veterans of America

Further Reading Association for Service Disabled Veterans. www.asdv.org/ASDV/index.cfm Hickel, K. Walter. ‘‘Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare: The Politics of Disability Compensation for American Veterans of World War I.’’ InThe New Disability History: American Perspectives, edited by Paul K. Longmore and Laui Umansky, 236–66. New York: New York University Press, 2001. Paralyzed Veterans of America. www.pva.org ‘‘Wars and Scars: The Story of Compassion and Service for the Nation’s Disabled War Veterans.’’ Disabled American War Veterans. www.dav.org/about/history/html.

DODGE, GRENVILLE MELLEN (1831–1916) A prominent Civil War veteran born in Massachusetts in 1831, Dodge graduated from Norwich University in Vermont in 1851. As a young man, he became involved in railroad surveying and construction, finally settling in Council Bluffs, Iowa. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Dodge became colonel of the 4th Iowa regiment. Wounded twice during the war and rising to the rank of major general, Dodge displayed ability at keeping rail communications open and a flair for organizing and operating intelligence

Dogs networks. In 1866, he resigned from the army to become chief engineer of the Union Pacific Railroad. Elected to Congress in 1868, he concentrated on completing the transcontinental railroad and did not seek reelection. Dodge subsequently became involved in a variety of railroad and other ventures, spending much of his time in New York City, where he became an influential figure in business and political circles. In 1898, he was appointed by President McKinley to chair a commission that investigated the War Department’s performance in the war with Spain. Dodge’s participation in veterans’ affairs increased markedly after about 1885. He seems to have been greatly affected by the death of his friend Ulysses S. Grant in that year and drew closer to his wartime comrades. Dodge was a frequent speaker at Grand Army of the Republic encampments and remained a member of the post in Council Bluffs (where he paid the dues of needy members). He was also an early and active member of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) and played a major role in organizing its New York commandery in 1886. He served as national commander of the organization in 1906–1907. He was perhaps most active in the Society of the Army of the Tennessee, the oldest of the army-based societies formed by Union officers. Dodge succeeded William T. Sherman as national commander in 1891 and held

| 155

the position until his death. The society became the vehicle for Dodge’s frequent involvement in memorialization projects, beginning with his service as vice-chair of the group that created Grant’s Tomb in New York City. Another Dodge-led project produced the Sherman Monument in Washington, DC. He later cochaired the commission that created the Grant Monument on the National Mall. Dodge’s familiarity with sculptors and architects led him to offer advice freely to veterans’ groups planning memorial projects. An advocate of sectional reconciliation, Dodge at times contributed to Confederate memorial projects, such as the Sam Davis monument on the capitol lawn in Nashville (somewhat ironic as Dodge had ordered Davis’s execution during the war). By the time of his death in 1916, Dodge was one of the country’s most visible Civil War veterans. William C. Lowe

Further Reading Dodge, Grenville M. The Battle of Atlanta and Other Campaigns, Addresses, etc. Council Bluffs, IA: Monarch Printing, 1910. Hershson, Stanley P. Grenville M. Dodge: Soldier, Politician, Railroad Pioneer. Bloomington, IN and London: Indiana University Press, 1967.

DOGS See War Dogs

This page intentionally left blank

E convalesced until June 1862 and returned to serve under Richard Ewell and ‘‘Stonewall’’ Jackson. Despite his hardbitten, irreverent personality, ‘‘Old Jube’s’’ battlefield acumen at the battles of Cedar Mountain (August 9, 1862), Antietam (September 17, 1862), and Fredericksburg (December 13, 1862) earned him a promotion to major general in 1863. Early played a crucial role in the victory at Chancellorsville on May 3, 1863, and followed it with a notable victory at Winchester, Virginia, on June 14, 1863. At Gettysburg (July 1–3, 1863), Early strongly influenced crucial decisions that contributed to the Confederate defeat. In mid-1864 after the Wilderness engagement, Early and the Second corps of the Army of Northern Virginia, which he commanded, were shifted to the Shenandoah Valley to combat the growing Union pressure. Thwarted in his July raid against Washington, DC, Early returned to the Valley, attempting to stall Union General Philip Sheridan’s incursions. After a series of defeats in the spring of

EARLY, JUBAL (1816–1894) Jubal Early served as a lieutenant general in the Civil War and as an outspoken defender of the Lost Cause during Reconstruction. Born in Franklin County, Virginia, Early attended West Point, graduating in the class of 1837. After serving a tour in the Seminole War (1837–1838), he returned to Virginia where he practiced law and was elected as a Whig to the legislature from 1841 to 1842. Early volunteered for duty in the Mexican War and served as the military governor of Monterrey (1847). In 1861, Early attended the Virginia Secession Convention as a unionist delegate, voting against secession; however, upon secession, Early gave wholehearted support to Virginia, serving as colonel of militia in training recruits at Lynchburg, Virginia. Early’s action at First Manassas on July 21, 1861, proved his capabilities as a field commander, earning promotion to brigadier. Wounded at the Battle of Williamsburg on May 5, 1862, Early 157

158 |

Employment

1865, Early was relieved of responsibility by Lee and headed west to join Kirby Smith’s army in Texas. Before reaching Texas, Early learned of the complete Confederate surrender and proceeded to Mexico. In 1866, he moved to Canada. Motivated from economic necessity and by a desire to vindicate the South, Early began his literary efforts while in Canada, publishing a campaign history and beginning his memoirs. After President Andrew Johnson’s 1868 amnesty proclamation, he returned to Lynchburg, Virginia, in 1869. He resumed law practice and also served as a commissioner of the Louisiana State Lottery Company from 1877 to 1893. Early also served as president of the Southern Historical Society. This group of veterans, founded in 1869, dedicated itself to shaping the South’s postwar identity in terms of the ‘‘Lost Cause.’’ In speeches and writings publicized throughout the nation, he argued that the South had fought for freedom and states’ rights, not slavery and economic benefits. Eventually, Northerners as well as Southerners accepted this interpretation, immortalized on film in Gone With the Wind (1939) (see Film and Veterans)— which remained the dominant one in the nation until the civil rights movement in the 1960s caused historians and the general public to rethink the war. A strident, vitriolic advocate of the South’s moral and political righteousness, Early focused on enshrining the memory of Lee in the popular consciousness. After Lee’s death in 1870, Early used letters, speeches, memorial projects, and a veterans’ organization, the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia,

to shape Lee’s image into that of a mythic, righteous warrior. These efforts resulted in a publicly celebrated feud with James Longstreet over who was responsible for the Gettysburg defeat, with Longstreet blaming Lee, and Early blaming Longstreet. Infuriated by Longstreet’s Republican politics and his public criticism of Lee’s tactics, Early carried on a campaign of historical revision in the Southern Historical Society Papers from 1877 to 1878 that disgraced Longstreet and reshaped the public’s understanding of the battle. Throughout these years, Early remained a symbol of the proud, undefeated, unreconstructed rebel. He died after a brief illness on March 2, 1894. Jonathan Newell See also Confederate Veterans Associations; Civil War Veterans; Confederate Veterans in Latin America (excluding Brazil)

Further Reading Connelly, Thomas L., and Barbara L. Bellows. God and General Longstreet: The Lost Cause and the Southern Mind. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982. Early, Jubal Anderson. Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War between the States. New York: Konecky and Konecky, 1994. Osborne, Charles C. Jubal: The Life and Times of General Jubal A. Early, CSA, Defender of the Lost Cause. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1994.

EMPLOYMENT See Preferences in Government Employment

F American forces that crushed Philippine resistance three decades earlier. When the Japanese occupied the Philippines in 1942, Filipinos were not American citizens. Nevertheless, both Filipinos living in the islands and in the United States, where there were over a hundred thousand Filipinos, wanted to enlist to defend their homeland. Philippine soldiers who had escaped to Australia after the American-Filipino forces surrendered were trained as the First Reconnaisance Battalion and smuggled back into the islands. President Franklin Roosevelt responded to requests from the Filipino community in the United States and ordered their enlistment. The First Filipino Infantry was formed on April 8, 1942, in San Luis Obispo, California. Only volunteers were admitted to this unit: other Filipinos who were drafted served in regular units. A third of the Filipino men living in the United States served during World War II. During the war, the Filipino Naturalization Bill passed and by 1944 over half

FILIPINO-AMERICAN VETERANS Filipinos have served in the U.S. armed forces since the war fought from 1898 to 1902 to eliminate Philippine resistance at the end of the Spanish-American War. Philippine leaders who assisted the United States against Spain, notably Emilio Aguinaldo, were promised independence. President William McKinley refused to grant it on the grounds some other nation would seize the islands and that the Filipinos were not ready to rule themselves. It was a campaign foreshadowing many aspects of the Vietnam War—concentration of civilians in camps to prevent guerrillas’ infiltration and scorched earth tactics. The United States promised the Philippines independence by 1946 and had established the islands as a largely self-governing commonwealth in 1935. Under the direction of General Douglas MacArthur, the Philippine army was established in 1936. MacArthur’s father, Arthur MacArthur, had led the 159

160 |

Film and Veterans

of the First Infantry had become citizens. But most Filipinos who lived in the islands and fought for the United States did not. President Roosevelt promised these Filipinos citizenship and veterans benefits after the war, but the government only allowed Filipnos six months to apply for citizenship. When the Philippines became independent, Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946 and ended the possibility of applying. Filipino veterans have lobbied to obtain full veterans’ benefits from the United States, but repeatedly have failed. The American Coalition for Filipino Veterans is the leading veterans’ association for Filipinos. As of 2008, Filipino veterans who did not become U.S. citizens have the right to use veterans’ hospitals and be buried in veterans’ cemeteries, but they receive no monetary benefits. William Pencak See also Philippine War Veterans; World War II Veterans

Further Reading American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc. www.usfilvets.tripod.com Fabors, Alex S. ‘‘Filipino-American Military Service in World War II.’’ In The Filipinos, edited by Michelle E. Houle, 77–83. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2007.

FILM AND VETERANS Only films about the veteran experience are discussed here, as opposed to war films. No effort is made to be complete, but instead this section describes major films made in the United States dealing with American veterans. These films share the following characteristics: the

emotional, as well as the physical, impact of war on veterans, manifested through mental illness such as posttraumatic stress disorder, drug addiction, alcoholism, impotence, violence, and/or uncommunicative behavior; an uncomprehending greater society—the few exceptions usually are women who marry veterans—that consists of a corrupt, profit-making capitalist war machine, a military hierarchy concerned with glory and unconcerned about human life, and a sterile, inadequate hospital system. Comradeship or tension between veterans of different races is another persistent theme. The veterans either are destroyed by, adjust to, or rise above their wartime injuries depending on the message the film intends to convey. The films are presented by war, in chronological order, so the course of thought about veterans, at least as represented on the screen, can be tracked. The leading film directors in twentiethcentury America, from D. W. Griffith, David O. Selznick, and John Huston to Michael Cimino, Francis Ford Coppola, and Oliver Stone, along with such foreign luminaries as Rainer Fassbinder and Louis Malle, have all tackled the problem of veteran readjustment. Director/actors such as Clint Eastwood and Sylvester Stallone have also been driving forces calling the public’s attention to the veterans’ predicament. Whereas the ‘‘John Wayne’’ film has offered the image of the soldier as the ‘‘strong, silent type’’ of hero, willing to do his duty uncomplainingly and without fanfare, the veteran film has presented a far more complicated image of the veteran. Even when he is a hero, he (and it is always a he) is almost always struggling against, rather than for, the forces of the government and greater society.

Film and Veterans

The Civil War American veterans, as opposed to soldiers, first appear in films about the Civil War and indeed are the protagonists in two of the greatest films of all time. In Birth of a Nation (1915), directed by D. W. Griffith and starring Lillian Gish, heroic Confederate veterans make up the Ku Klux Klan and in the film’s climax save the honor of a white woman from a black attacker (played by a white man in blackface.) The second reincarnation of the Klan in American history was in fact inspired by the film and began at Stone Mountain, Georgia, after the film was shown in Atlanta. Union veterans of the war and blacks are seen as an oppressive and corrupt force in the post-Civil War South. The silent film’s interpretation of post-Civil War Reconstruction is supported by on-screen quotations from some of the leading historians of the day including President Woodrow Wilson, himself a former professor. Far greater violence initiated by disgruntled exConfederates against blacks trying to exercise their rights and their supporters is ignored. The film, nevertheless, was a landmark in cinematic history for its length and the power of many scenes. The same pro-Southern interpretation appears in Gone with the Wind (1939), directed by David O. Selznick. Based on a novel of that title by Margaret Mitchell, it starred Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Hattie McDaniel, Leslie Howard, and Olivia DeHaviliand. In the second part of this epic, Confederate veterans return home to be exploited by ruthless poor whites and ex-slaves who have taken over the postwar government with the help of the Northern occupation forces. Meanwhile, the valiant former soldiers retaliate against the predominantly black inhabitants of a

| 161

shantytown who have attacked Scarlett O’Hara, the film’s main character, who has foolishly ridden through it. Scarlett herself, however, is not above exploiting poor jailed ex-Confederates by making them work under slave-like conditions at her mill. The ex-Southerners thus appear as both heroes and victims, the Northerners as ruthless oppressors. Civil War veterans who turned into Indian fighters in the West was a theme of several films directed by John Ford, including Fort Apache (1948) and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949). They usually starred John Wayne with Victor McLaglen or Ward Bond as his sidekick. Both Union and Confederate veterans are depicted as working together in the American West to fight Indians. Most are heroic, down-to-earth figures, although a few higher officers lack respect for Indians who are also depicted as noble warriors. In a different vein, Ford directed The Sun Shines Bright (1952) based on stories by Irvin S. Cobb, starring Charles Winninger and the black comedian Stepin Fetchit. Here, Southern and Northern veterans get along well in a post-Civil War Kentucky town, even wearing pieces of each other’s uniforms interchangeably. African Americans are treated as happy idiots, whites as pompous and corrupt members of the elite or drunken hillbillies. Ford himself was a veteran with sentimental ties to his old World War II unit, and despite the comic stereotypes the film celebrates the friendly camaraderie of veterans. The Undefeated (1969), directed by Andrew McLaglen and starring John Wayne and Rock Hudson, is the ultimate post-Civil War reconciliation film, urging national unity against unscrupulous foreigners at the height of the Vietnam War. Former Union veterans meet

162 |

Film and Veterans

Confederates fleeing to Mexico where they plan to fight for Emperor Maximilian. When they discover he is a tyrant, they join rebel forces under Benito Juarez, who ultimately wins that country’s fight for freedom. The Civil War is interpreted as a brothers’ war in which wounds can be healed through a common devotion to freedom. In 1989, Edward Zwick directed Glory, a moving and for the most part historically accurate film written by Kevin Jarre and starring Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman. It tells the story of the formation of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, the first black regiment in the war, the prejudice it encountered in the North, and its heroic although futile and costly assault on Fort Wagner, South Carolina. In Dances with Wolves (1990), directed by and starring Kevin Costner, adapted for film by Michael Blake from his novel of that name, the Civil War is presented as futile, driving the hero to madness. A wounded Union officer, sick of the bloodshed, tries to get shot during the Civil War but emerges as a hero instead. Disillusioned, he heads west to command a post that turns out to be deserted. He befriends a wolf and the nearby Sioux Indians, whom he joins and defends against white attacks. (See also Civil War Veterans; Confederate Veterans Associations; African American Civil War Veterans.)

World War I Disillusion with ‘‘the war to end all wars’’ and its tragic effect on the brave men who fought it is a theme in common to nearly all films dealing with World War I veterans. Perhaps the most powerful is I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang

(1932), directed by Mervyn LeRoy and starring Paul Muni. Decorated for bravery in World War I, a veteran is restless in peacetime society. He is present as a friend robs a diner in a southern state (in fact, Georgia) and sentenced to a hellish prison from which he escapes to write the book from which title the film is taken. Along the way, the veteran is reimprisoned after he is betrayed by a woman only to escape a second time. The veteran is viewed as the victim of both government and society, but capable of rising above his problems and fighting back. It was released the same year as the Bonus March. The following year, Heroes for Sale (1933), directed by William Wellman and starring Richard Barthelmess and Loretta Young, appeared. Wellman, a wounded veteran who flew planes for the Lafayette Escadrille—Americans who volunteered to fly for France before U.S. entry into the war—made this film at the time the Bonus Army was being expelled from Washington, DC, in 1932 and American disillusion with having fought World War I was strong. The film depicts the absurdity of war and its unjust outcome. Tom, a hero who captures a German soldier, is wounded, captured in turn by the Germans, and becomes addicted to morphine. Roger is a coward who stays behind to take charge of the German prisoner and is decorated for heroism. Tom cannot keep a job in Roger’s bank (his father was an executive), a none-too-subtle reference to the war’s real winners, the capitalists who made money selling arms to the Allies and the bankers who loaned the European countries the money to do so. Tom, cured of his addiction at a government hospital, becomes a Communist, as did some veterans in the 1930s. His wife is killed in

Film and Veterans a riot, he goes to jail, but he keeps the rights to an invention given him by a fellow Communist. Using the money to feed unfortunates at a soup kitchen, he meets his old friend Roger as a tramp when his bank fails. The film ends as Tom is honored (posthumously) for feeding the hungry. Ernest Hemingway served heroically as a volunteer medic in the Red Cross Ambulance Corps after the army turned him down. The film The Sun Also Rises (1957), directed by Henry King and starring Tyrone Power, Ava Gardner, and Errol Flynn, is based on Hemingway’s novel of that title. It contrasts a sexually impotent war veteran (in the film his disability becomes a spinal condition) who, despite his attraction for a dynamic war widow, becomes the third wheel in a relationship she develops with a Spanish matador. The film presents Hemingway’s interesting take on how the appearance rather than the substance of heroism is what attracts. Johnny Got His Gun (1971) was directed by Dalton Trumbo, a Hollywood writer blacklisted during the 1950s for his allegedly Communist beliefs, based on a novel he wrote in 1939. It starred Timothy Bottoms, Jason Robards, and Donald Sutherland. Appearing while the United States was doing badly during Vietnam, it drew attention to the longterm, secret sufferings of veterans that both society and the leaders who keep recruiting soldiers prefer to keep secret. Dismembered Joe has lost his face, his mobility, and his ability to speak—a fate both real and symbolic of his unknown story. He finally is able to communicate by tapping out Morse code with his head, but the general in charge of his hospital refuses to let him tell his story by being seen in public places. In the end, he fades

| 163

into darkness. Scenes of Joe’s prewar life enhance the poignancy of a film that ends by noting 80 million people have died and 150 million have been wounded in twentieth-century wars. The most cheerful World War I film is The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000), directed by Robert Redford, based on a novel by Steven Pressfield, and starring RogerMatt Damon, Jack Lemon, Will Smith, and Charlize Theron. Savannah, Georgia’s prewar golf champion is the only survivor of his World War I company. Returning in the late 20s, he is able to regain his self-respect by playing in a golf tournament with the encouragement of a good woman and the advice of Bagger Vance, a black caddy. The veteran’s problems are shown as solvable through compassionate help and determination. (See also World War I Veterans; American Legion.)

World War II Just as the overwhelming Allied victory in World War II failed to solve the world’s and America’s problems, returning veterans confront emotional and social challenges. Perhaps the greatest of these films was The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), directed by William Wyler, screenplay by Robert Sherwood, screenplay from a novel by Mackinlay Kantor. Its all-star cast included Frederic March, Dana Andrews, Howard Russell, Hoagy Carmichael, Virginia Mayo, and Myrna Loy. Winner of multiple Academy Awards in 1946, the film depicts the difficulty three soldiers from a typical mid-America town have returning to civilian life. Al becomes an angry alcoholic. Fred goes from a post of responsibility to working as a soda-fountain clerk. Homer (named after the blind,

164 |

Film and Veterans

ancient Greek poet whose great work The Odyssey told of veterans’ perilous return from the Trojan War) is played by Harold Russell, a disabled veteran and founder of AMVETS in real life. Homer becomes the best adjusted as he finds a loving wife. Fred’s wife Marie, who has enjoyed herself during the war and tells him to ‘‘snap out of it’’ exemplifies the attitude the film’s creators hoped to counter toward the 16 million men and women who served in the armed forces during World War II. Russell was the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same performance. The Best Year’s theme had been anticipated in The Blue Dahlia (1945), directed by George Marshall, written by Raymond Chandler, and starring Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, Doris Dowling, William Bendix, Howard Da Silva, and Hugh Beaumont. It told the story of a returning World War II fighter pilot and his two friends’ (one a nervous wreck, the other a quiet man) return home. The pilot’s wife ignored his letters and became indifferent to him during the war; he becomes involved with a divorcee´ and is suspected of murdering his wife until a detective is revealed as the killer. The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956), directed by Nunnally Johnson, based on the novel by Sloan Wilson, and starring Gregory Peck, Marisa Pavan, and Jennifer Jones, is what many war veterans became. A white-collar worker, nagged by his wife for failing to make something of himself, recalls his wartime experiences: killing a German soldier, his affair with an Italian woman, and his accidental killing of his sergeant at the Battle of Okinawa. He both dreads yet cherishes his wartime experiences as opposed to his mundane, unfulfilling postwar existence.

Some Came Running (1958), starring Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Arthur Kennedy, Shirley McClaine, and Martha Hyer, is the story of Dave, a war veteran, who cannot adjust to normal life as he seeks glamour and excitement. He is torn between the fast life of his friends and the study of literature, falling for a college professor who publishes his manuscript. When she rejects him romantically, he marries a lively factory worker he treats indifferently who nevertheless loves him and is then killed (Dave is wounded) by a jealous ex-boyfriend. Desert Bloom (1986), directed by Eugene Corr and starring Jon Voigt, JoBeth Williams, Annabelle Gish, and Ellen Burstyn, refers to a disabled, alcoholic, emotionally disturbed veteran of World War II who runs a gas station near Las Vegas, Nevada, during the Korean War. He fears Communists and can be abusive to his wife and stepdaughter but manages, in the end, to do a reasonably good job of surmounting his problems. The fear of the atom bomb prevalent in the early 1950s is brought vividly, and sometimes humorously, to life. In a way, the veteran is an American ‘‘everyman.’’ Racial and ethnic conflict characterized other films. Crossfire (1947), directed by Edward Dmytryk and starring Robert Ryan, Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, George Cooper, and Gloria Grahame, deals with the persistence of anti-semitism in America despite the Nazi example. One veteran kills another because the latter is a Jew. Yet a third war veteran, who is drunk and ill, is blamed for the murder (see Jewish Veterans). The Men (1950), directed by Fred Zinneman and starring Marlon Brando, Teresa Wright, and Jack Webb, portrays the sufferings of men at a veterans’

Film and Veterans rehabilitation hospital. Brando becomes a heroic figure, coming to accept his inability to walk and finally getting married to an understanding woman. Bad Day at Black Rock (1955), directed by John Sturges, screenplay by Millard Kaufmann, and story by Howard Breslin, starred Spencer Tracy, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, Anne Francis, and Walter Brennan. Made at the time schools were first being desegregated in the American South, the name Black Rock would have reminded the contemporary viewer of Little Rock, scene of the first major confrontation between federal troops and a state government preventing the integration of public schools that year. A white World War II veteran who owes his life to a Japanese-American (who died) goes to Black Rock, Arizona, to find the man’s father, only to find out he has been killed during the war by a lynch mob, a fact that town tried to keep secret (see JapaneseAmerican Veterans; African American Veterans, World War II). Snow Falling on Cedars (1999), written and directed by Scott Hicks, based on a novel by David Gutterson, and starring Ethan Hawke, Max von Sydow, Rick Youne, and Yuki Kudoh, illustrates racial tensions arising from World War II in the Pacific Northwest. Ishmael (a name found in the Bible and Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick, a wanderer with no sense of belonging) is a reporter and one-armed war veteran and the son of a newspaper owner who courageously defended the patriotism of JapaneseAmericans when they were rounded up in detention camps during World War II. Ishmael loved a Japanese-American girl, but her traditional mother insists she marry one of her own, Kazuo. Kazuo is also a war veteran, but when he returns

| 165

and tries to buy back his farm from a boyhood friend, Carl, the latter dies under mysterious circumstances. Despite his jealousy and anger, Ishmael reveals evidence which exonerates Kazuo. Moral veterans of different races can overcome the tragedies of war is the message. Key Largo (1948), directed by Richard Brooks and John Huston, based on a play by Maxwell Anderson, starred Humphrey Bogart, Edward G. Robinson, Lauren Bacall, and Lionel Barrymore. Bogart here reprises his role from the wartime Casablanca (1943) of the quintessential American, tough exterior with the heart of gold, able but unwilling to fight unless absolutely necessary. A war veteran refuses to fight again, despite the fact the hotel belonging to the parents’ of his deceased war buddy is taken over by a ruthless gangster. He is finally forced to fight against his will after repeated taunting by the gangster, depicting the attitude many Americans felt about the need to fight Communism after World War II ended. Originally, Anderson’s play dealt with a veteran of the leftist opposition to Francisco Franco’s fascist government in the Spanish Civil War, but as that cause had become identified with Communism by the late 1940s, he was transformed in the film into a World War II veteran.

The Korean War Like World War II films, those of the Korean War feature veterans who have trouble adjusting to civilian life. China Gate (1957), directed and written by Sam Fuller and starring Gene Barry, Nat King Cole, Angie Dickinson, and Lee Van Cleef, is the story of two American Korean War veterans who have become

166 |

Film and Veterans

mercenaries fighting for the French in Indochina in the mid-1950s. It is testament to interracial brotherhood between black and white veterans just after the armed forces were integrated (1948), while showing little sympathy for Asians, who are all played by whites. It both expresses the belief that only the French were guarding Indochina, the ‘‘gate’’ to China, and preventing a Communist takeover there, while noting at the same time the tyranny of French colonialism. Fuller was a much-decorated World War II veteran (see African American Veterans, Korean War). Filmed the same year, A Hatful of Rain (1957), directed by Fred Zinneman based on a play by Michael Gazzo, and starring Don Murray, Lloyd Nolan, Eva Marie Saint, and Anthony Franciosa, tells the story of an emotionally disturbed drug-addicted Korean War veteran, abandoned by a father who nevertheless brags about his courage. This relationship is consciously symbolical of the Korean veterans’ relationship to the nation’s leaders—they are bragged about yet their problems are ignored. The title comes from when the veteran was a boy, his father told him he would prosper if he worked hard. So he dug and dug at a hole in the dirt, and all he got was ‘‘a hatful of rain.’’ The most famous film about a Korean war veteran is The Manchurian Candidate (1962). It was directed by John Frankenheimer, adapted from a story by Richard Condon, and starred Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Angela Lansbury, Janet Leigh, and Richard Condon. The ‘‘candidate,’’ the average American or veteran, is presented as the victim of sinister forces that threaten to destroy the nation. Shaw, a medal of honor winner, has been brainwashed by Communists

in Korea to kill upon demand—hence the title as Manchuria was the region of China closest to Korea where the brainwashing occurred. He is also dominated by his mother, who is a secret Soviet agent. He cannot distinguish his hallucinations from real life, including wartime flashbacks, and eventually kills his mother and stepfather, who resembles the Communist hunter Senator Joseph McCarthy. He is exposed, too late, by clever CIA agent Marco who is the only one to take seriously and investigate his mental problems. A simultaneous attack on Communism, Communist spying, and the excesses of anti-Communism, it also criticizes overbearing mothers who dominated their sons’ lives and threatened their manhood and patriotism (‘‘momism’’ as psychologists described it in the 1950s). The hero is the patriotic intelligence agent who saves the country. The veteran appears as an emotionally unstable, psychotic threat to the nation through no fault of his own. (See also the remake under ‘‘Persian Gulf War.’’) Going All the Way (1997), directed by Mark Pellington, with a screenplay by Dan Wakefield based upon his novel of the same name, and starring Jeremy Davies, Ben Affleck, Jill Clayburgh, and Lesley Ann Warren, is a tribute to Korean War veterans filmed during an era when the nation began to honor their contributions. Two men from the same high school (popular athlete Gunnar and an introvert misfit Sonny) return from the Korean War to their Indiana hometown and become friends. Gunnar has become changed by his encounters with Buddhist philosophy, befriends Sonny, and seeks to marry a Jewish woman and go to New York over his mother’s objections. Sonny longs for a glamorous sexual encounter but is impotent. The men help

Film and Veterans each other readjust from both their wartime experiences and the indifferent responses awaiting them back home. Clint Eastwood directed and starred in another film made the same year lauding a Korean War veteran, Absolute Power (1997). Its screenplay was by William Goldman from a novel by David Baldacci, and it also starred Gene Hackman, Judy Davis, Ed Harris. Scott Glenn, E. G. Marshall, and Laura Linney. Here a heroic Korean War veteran turns to crime, but his crime is nothing compared to that of the president of the United States, who has an extramarital affair and arranges for the woman’s murder. The veteran exposes him and thus redeems himself.

Vietnam War Vietnam War films tend to portray the veterans as misfits, victims who cannot live at home in peace despite their best efforts, or heroes who have to battle a corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy during the war and then fight with it at home as well. Unlike previous wars, many of the films were made as the war occurred (1964–1973) and thus fed the public’s anger at the conflict while turning veterans into objects of fear, disgust, or pity. Vietnam veterans first appeared in cheap films exploiting violence, such as Motor Psycho (1965), directed and written by Russ Meyer. This was probably the first film to depict the Vietnam veteran as a misfit, in this case a murdering, raping member of a bicycle gang. The gang even kills a World War I veteran who has a moving story of lifetime suffering. The ‘‘Billy Jack’’ movies starring Tom Laughlin and directed by T. C. Frank are a step up although their extensive handto-hand fighting and violence is at least as important as the plot. In Born Losers

| 167

(1967) and Billy Jack (1971), a partIndian former Vietnam Green Beret returns to America. Trying to live in peace, he is drawn into fights for domestic justice—in the former film to save a town from a gang of wild bikers, and in the second, to avenge an alternative ‘‘Freedom School’’ which is persecuted by the government. Other movies in this vein include several Billy Jack sequels, including, Satan’s Sadists (1969) and Chrome and Hot Leather (1971) where Vietnam veterans again fight bikers, and Mr. Majestyk (1974) where a farmer of that name played by Charles Bronson defends Mexican migrant workers from local businessmen and officials. The Ballad of Andy Crocker (1969), directed by George McCowan, written by Stuart Margolin, and starring Lee Majors, Jimmy Dean, Marvin Gaye, and Agnes Morehead, again features a Vietnam veteran who comes home, planning to live a peaceful and happy life. But here he has been betrayed by society: cheated by his business partner, deserted by his girlfriend, and shunned by his family. He becomes a fugitive after he beats up his partner; the film ends as he plans to reenlist as the military is his only refuge. The German filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder also attempted to comment on the Vietnam War as a destroyer of men in The American Soldier (1970). Starring Karl Scheydt, a Vietnam veteran who has lost his emotions works as an assassin for German criminals. The crudest form of exploitation film, Blackenstein (meaning the black Frankenstein, 1972) directed by William Levy, and starring Joe De Sue, Ivory Stone, and John Hart preys as well on the public image of both the veteran and the hospital system. Having lost both arms and legs in Vietnam, Eddie is

168 |

Film and Veterans

treated poorly at a veterans’ hospital, where only a generally hostile orderly is seen to help him. He is injected with a formula to cure him, but an assistant jealous of the inventor’s girlfriend substitutes a potion that turns Eddie into a maniac. Deathdream (1972), directed by Bob Clark, and starring Richard Backus, John Marley, and Jane Daley, along with The Visitors (1972), directed by Elia Kazan and written by Chris Kazan. starring James Woods, Patricia Joyce, Patrick McVey, Steven Railsback, and Chico Martinez, both illustrate the alienation of the Vietnam generation from older Americans and civilian society. In the former, an antisocial, violent, drunk Vietnam veteran confronts his father, a World War II veteran, who commits suicide out of frustration. The son crawls off to the graveyard. In the latter, Bill, a mildmannered Vietnam war veteran who tries to live peacefully with his wife, is visited by two former buddies, just out of military prison for rape and murder in Vietnam. Egged on by Bill’s father-in-law, they rape Bill’s wife Martha, who is somewhat attracted to these macho types, and beat up Bill as well before leaving him to confront his weakness. More negative images appeared in Electra Glide in Blue (1973), directed by James William Guercio, adapted by Robert Boris from a story by Boris and Rupert Hitzig. Starring Robert Blake, Vietnam veterans, a policeman, and the hippie who shoots him in the end, are depicted as lazy, lawless misfits as are their superiors and society in general. Another veteran, a good cop, is disgusted at it all. In Gordon’s War (1973), directed by Ossie Davis, written by Howard Friedlander and Ed Spielman and starring Paul

Winfield, Carl Lee, David Downing, and Tony King, the veteran black actor Davis tries to present the need for the black community to save itself from both the war and exploitation by white society. Black Vietnam veterans gather in Harlem to kill drug dealers as both the police and white businessmen are complicit or impotent in fighting crime. The war at home is seen as an analogue to Southeast Asia, requiring guerrilla tactics and needing to be fought outside the law. The predicament of returning veterans appears as well in Tracks (1976), directed and written by Jenry Jaglom and starring Dennis Hopper, the famous portrayer of outlaw types. A white veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, bringing home the body of a black soldier, goes insane and starts shooting when no one is prepared to receive the body. World War II songs play on the soundtrack, indicating the difference (as does the veteran’s Korean War experience) between attitudes toward Vietnam veterans and those of previous wars. One of the most compelling films about Vietnam veterans is Taxi Driver (1976), directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Robert DeNiro, Cybill Shepherd, Leonard Harris, Peter Boyle, Harvey Keitel, and Jodie Foster. A paranoid, lonely ex-marine Vietnam veteran who works as a New York City taxi driver plans to kill a U.S. senator, but winds up shooting the pimp and some criminal friends of a twelve-year old prostitute he visits, turning him into a hero. New York City, in decline at this time, is depicted as an evil urban war zone, while DeNiro’s performance— he wears his military jacket throughout— is a tour de force. Foster provides DeNiro with the only center in his life. Heroes (1977), directed by Jeremy Kagen and starring Henry Winkler, Sally

Film and Veterans Field, and Harrison Ford, again features a veteran supported by a good woman. It is a comedy in which a mentally disturbed Vietnam veteran moves to the American heartland to start a worm farm with his buddies. They all desert him, but he survives with the love of a woman who has left her husband. An Oscar-winning film, Deer Hunter (1978), directed by Michael Cimino and starring Meryl Streep, John Savage, Robert DeNiro, John Cazale, George Dzundza, and Christopher Walken, is the story of young men from the steel mills who are about to be sent to Vietnam. The opening scenes show the men hunting deer together and attending one of their weddings. Their desire for thrills and sexual urges are displayed. Overseas they are captured and forced to play Russian roulette in a prison. Rescued, they are disillusioned: one kills himself playing the same game as two of the men are present at the fall of Saigon, the other winds up in the typically sterile veterans’ hospital as an amputee, and the third is disillusioned and can no longer go hunting. The film emphasizes the senselessness of the war, macho behavior, and the mindless loyalty inculcated into poor Americans. Coming Home (1978) is directed by Hal Ashby, with a script by Nancy Dowd, starred Jane Fonda, Bruce Dern, and Jon Voight. Fonda is perhaps the American most disliked by many Vietnam veterans for traveling to North Vietnam during the war and her public opposition to it. The film reflects Fonda’s version of her own career and its relationship to the national experience. In the film, she plays a nurse who falls in love with a crippled veteran—she is trying to save the ‘‘crippled’’ veteran and nation. Meanwhile, her husband, who fights and

| 169

returns physically intact from the war, is emotionally destroyed by the conflict. Who’ll Stop the Rain (1978), directed by Karel Reisz, with a screenplay by Judith Rascal and Robert Stone, from Stone’s novel Dog Soldiers, is the story of a troubled Vietnam veteran who becomes involved in a heroin smuggling scheme and is killed by a corrupt policemen after he takes his profits and tries to settle down on a farm. Playboy magazine entered the lists by presenting Saint Jack (1979). Directed by Peter Bogdanovich, with a screenplay by Bogdanovich, Howard Sackler, and Paul Theroux based on a book by Theroux, the film starred Bogdanovich, Ben Gazzara, Denholm Elliott, and Monika Subramaniam. A genial Korean War veteran runs an R&R (rest and recreation) facility for American soldiers serving in Vietnam, an extension of his prewar enterprises in which prostitution and marijuana figured heavily. By the film’s end, he is disgusted by the CIA that hired him and the corrupt politicians he covers for, and he returns to the United States. The film exemplifies the magazine’s tolerance for sex, drugs, and fun as opposed to the futility of war. The Stunt Man (1980) was the first major Vietnam film of the 1980s. Directed by Richard Rush and starring Peter O’Toole, Steve Railsback, and Barbara Hershey, it tells the story of a Vietnam veteran who pretends to be the stunt man he has accidentally killed for a movie about World War I. The danger of the scenes he undertakes at the behest of a slightly insane and unfeeling director both parodies and questions similar orders given in wartime. Cutter’s Way (1981), directed by Ivan Passer, based on a novel of the same title by Newton Thornbugh, starred John

170 |

Film and Veterans

Heard, Jeff Bridges, and Lisa Eichhorn. Cutter, a Vietnam veteran, returns to the United States and seeks revenge on a wealthy man he believes killed a woman and dumped her body. Cutter’s behavior is generally violent and antisocial, and he uses his veteran’s status to excuse it. Cutter’s best friend, Bone, who avoided the draft, spends much of the movie trying to control Cutter as Cutter tries to involve him in his scheme of revenge. Ashes and Embers (1982), directed by Haile Gerima and starring John Anderson, did not receive the attention it deserved. It is the powerful tale of a maladjusted African American Vietnam veteran who becomes involved in crime and is anchored by his strong grandmother who stands for the power of traditional values. The Rambo films, with various directors and co-writers, were the brainchild of Sylvester Stallone, a working-class Philadelphia actor who was catapulted into fame with his Oscar award-winning Rocky. The Rambo films, entitled First Blood (1982), Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), Rambo Part III (1988), and Rambo Part IV: Pearl of the Cobra (2008), are based on a novel by David Morrell. Rambo as created and played by Sylvester Stallone, much like the boxer Rocky who has been the subject of six of his moves as of 2007, has become an archetype or symbol of the decent, slow-to-anger, inarticulate everyman who nevertheless is capable of both heroism and extreme violence when made angry. Rambo is a Vietnam War medal of honor winner and expert at guerrilla warfare. In First Blood he wanders the country aimlessly and finds out a buddy has died from the effects of Agent Orange. Rambo destroys much of a town whose sheriff has unjustly arrested, humiliated, beaten, and

imprisoned him. Persuaded to surrender to the authorities, Rambo is released from prison to go back to Vietnam (Rambo: First Blood Part II) on a mission where he is supposed to prove there are no remaining prisoners of war (see Prisoners of War/Missing in Action). He shows otherwise, after surviving torture by Russians who are behind the Vietnamese. He refuses to abort the mission and rescues the prisoners. In Rambo III he goes to Afghanistan where with the aid of freedom fighters he rescues his old commander who now works for the CIA. The gist is that Rambo, his fellow soldiers, and people of other countries are suffering not only because of Communists, but also due to their own government’s cruelty and incompetence. The government ‘‘lost’’ Vietnam because of unwillingness to pursue the war to a victorious conclusion, whereas the average American soldier is both patriotic and heroic. In Rambo Part IV: Pearl of the Cobra, Rambo rescues Christian missionaries from pirates and the military in Burma (Myanmar), although Burma can easily be interpreted as a substitute for Iraq and the pirates for terrorists. A very different message appears in the The Big Chill (1983). Directed by Lawrence Kasdan and written by Kasdan and Barbara Benedik, it starred William Hurt, Meg Tilly, Glenn Close, Kevin Kline, Tom Berenger, Mary Kay Place, Jeff Goldblum, and JoBeth Williams. A group of friends in their thirties gather to mourn a friend who has killed himself. Vietnam veteran Nick is a moody and introspective alcoholic and drug addict; the nature of his war experience remains unknown yet omnipresent as the group tries to sort out their futures. The long-term psychological effects of the Vietnam War on veterans is the

Film and Veterans subject of three movies made in 1984. Choose Me (1984) was directed and written by Alan Rudolph and starred Keith Carradine, Genevieve Bujold, and Lesley Ann Warren. Two women, one a psychiatrist, compete for a disturbed Vietnam veteran who lives with and asks both of them to marry him in his desperate search for love. Fleshburn (1984), directed by George Cage with a screenplay by George and Beth Cate, was based on the novel A Handful of Dust by Brian Garfield. Sony Lanham stars as a Native American Vietnam veteran who has flashbacks to his Vietnam experiences. He escapes from a mental institution, abandoning five psychiatrists who put him there. He dies of thirst and starvation in the desert. Birdy (1984), directed by Alan Parker, starred Nicholas Cage and Michael Modine. Birdy, one of two working-class boys from Philadelphia, who loved flight and birds, is reduced to a catatonic state by the war. He lives in a mental hospital. His friend Badge, physically rather than emotionally disfigured, unsuccessfully tries to bring him to his senses in this poignant film that attributes Birdy’s mental illness to both the war and the bleak environment in which he grew up. French director and writer Louis Malle deals with the problems of Vietnamese refugees in America as well as veterans in Alamo Bay (1985), starring Ed Harris, Hi Nguyen, Amy Madigan, and Martino LaSalle. An angry, alienated Vietnam veteran and Gulf Coast shrimp fisherman turns to solace from his nasty wife to one of many Vietnamese refugees who have taken up fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. The film brings out his and his culture’s racism: angered that he cannot make a living when his boat, named American Dream Girl, is repossessed, he beats up a

| 171

Vietnamese man and also shows hostility toward Mexican Americans. The Park Is Mine (1986), directed by Steven Hilliard Stern, with a screenplay by Lyle Gorch from a book by Stephen Peters, starred Tommy Lee Jones. Jones plays a Vietnam veteran, angered by a fellow veteran’s suicide, takes over New York City’s Central Park and becomes a folk hero as he uses jungle tactics to successfully evade police. Francis Ford Coppola, director of the epic Godfather trilogy, offered Gardens of Stone (1987) as his Vietnam veteran film with a screenplay by Ronald Bass from a book by Nicholas Profitt. It starred James Caan, James Earl Jones, Angelica Houston, and D. B. Sweeney. It begins as older Korean and Vietnam veterans bury those killed in Vietnam in Arlington National Cemetery. They advise the son of a friend, a Korean War sergeant, not to go to Vietnam but (after a colonel’s daughter spurns him as an enlisted man) he enlists and dies there. The film is interspersed with scenes and news of the war. Lethal Weapon (1987) was directed by Richard Donner and starred Danny Glover and Mel Gibson. Two veterans, African American, conservative Roger and white, renegade Martin are policemen who saved each others’ lives in Vietnam and do so again as they battle a ruthless government agency, ‘‘the Shadow Company’’ that smuggles heroin. (One popular belief is that the United States was involved in Vietnam to protect the valuable, illegal drug traffic shared by the government and professional criminals.) Both types of veterans are shown to be equally necessary in war and peace. Robert Altman’s Vietnam veteran film is O. C. and Stiggs (1987). With a

172 |

Film and Veterans

screenplay by Donald Cantrell and Ted Mann, it is based on a story by Mann and Todd Carroll and stars Dennis Hopper, Mario Van Peebles, Louis Nye, and Ray Watson. Two teenagers in modern Arizona take revenge on an insurance salesman who is trying to cheat them out of their grandfather’s settlement by enlisting two survivalist Vietnam veterans who employ parodies of guerrilla tactics to strike back at the salesman. Altman himself was a combat pilot in World War II. The Presidio (1988), directed by Peter Hyams, written by Larry Ferguson, and starring Sean Connery, Meg Ryan, Mark Harmon, and Jack Warden, again shows Vietnam veterans as being successful in criminal activities. Two war heroes were deeply involved in the black market, which carries over into diamond smuggling and murder in the postwar era as they hold high positions at San Francisco’s (now closed) military base, the Presidio. More psychologically disturbed veterans appeared in 1988 and 1989. Distant Thunder (1988), directed by Rick Rosenthal, from a screenplay by Robert Stitzel and adapted from a story by Stitzel and Deedee Wahle, starred John Lithgow, Kerrie Keane, Tom Bower, Reb Brown, Dennis Arndt, and Ralph Macchio. Reclusive veterans in the Pacific Northwest live apart from society, commit suicide, and brawl with each other. One tries to get a job at the local mill but remains unhappy, and even a woman’s friendship and meeting with his son fails to relieve his depression and loneliness. Jacknife (1989), directed by David Hugh Jones and starring Robert DeNiro, Ed Harris, and Kathy Baker, is an emotionally wrenching film with a happy ending. Veteran Jacknife who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder visits his old wary buddy Dave,

an alcoholic. Both are truck drivers. Jacknife falls in love with Dave’s sister, but Dave objects; they enter group therapy and accept each other. In Country (1989), directed by Norman Jewison with screenplay by Cynthia Cidre and Frank Pierson is based on a novel by Bobby Ann Mason and starred Bruce Willis, Emily Lloyd, and Peggy Rae. A teenaged girl tries to find out about her late father’s experiences in Vietnam. Her uncle, also a veteran, is a loner and brawls with other misfit veterans. With the help of her grandmother, the girl obtains her father’s journal (its episodes are brought to life on screen). Depicting the life of a small mid-American town (in Kentucky), the film concludes as the three protagonists achieve a measure of peace as they visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. The ability of Vietnam to empower American Indian Veterans appears in Powwow Highway (1989), directed by Jonathan Wacks. It is based on a screenplay by Janet Heaney and Jean Stawarz and is from a novel by David Seals. It stars A. Martinez, Joanelle Nadine Romero, Gary Farmer, Amanda Wyss, and Leigh Opitz. A Native American Vietnam veteran rescues his wife and daughters who have been imprisoned for transporting marijuana. Along the way, he joins with a semi-deranged old army buddy and other Indian activists in a confrontation against conformist Indians, acquiring a hatred of the society on whose behalf he fought and gaining an appreciation of his traditional roots. A far better known anti-war veteran film of 1989 was Born on the Fourth of July (1989), directed by Oliver Stone, with a screenplay by Stone and Ron Kovic, who wrote the novel of the same name. Starring Tom Cruise and Willem

Film and Veterans Dafoe, it is based on the true story of Kovic, a Long Island, New York, veteran who believed in the war and his country, but returns crippled from Vietnam. He learns to use a wheelchair despite a hideous veterans’ hospital, then revels and riots with other crippled veterans at a Mexican resort, apologizes to the family of a man he killed by mistake, and finally protests the war and throws away his medals in the manner of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War demonstration. Scenes of the war, Kovic’s childhood, and his postwar life are juxtaposed to show how he achieves maturity and selfhood through opposition politics. Jacob’s Ladder (1990), directed by Adrian Lyne and starring Tim Robbins, Danny Aiello, and Elizabeth Pena, deals with the mental troubles experienced by veterans who were the unknowing victims of psychological drug experiments. The Indian Runner (1991) was directed and written by Sean Penn and starred David Morse, Viggo Mortensen, Sandy Dennis, Charles Bronson, Patricia Arquette, and Dennis Hopper. Sean Penn’s first effort to write and direct a film resulted in this powerful drama. Joe remains at home and becomes an upstanding policeman as brother Frank goes off to Vietnam, goes to prison, and turns to a life of crime and violence. With his father and his farm taken from him, Frank kills himself as Joe tries in vain to rehabilitate Frank. Red Rock West (1993), directed by John Dahl and starring Dennis Hopper, Nicholas Cage, J. T. Walsh, and Lara Flynn Boyle, is perhaps the ultimate film to depict the veteran as a helpless victim. A wounded, penniless Vietnam veteran who refuses to do wrong is mistaken for another veteran, a hostile maniac hired by a bartender to kill his wife. He remains

| 173

true to his principles after many narrow escapees, false accusations, and comic turns, leaving town on a freight train to face a bleak future. Article 99 (1991), directed by Howard Deutsch, written by Ron Cutler, and starring Troy Evans, Kiefer Sutherland, Eli Wallach, Ray Liota, and Kathy Baker, depicts veterans’ hospitals at their worst. At first, heroic doctors and nurses manage to save a farmer/veteran who suffers a heart attack when a veteran who was refused treatment goes berserk and shoots up the admissions lobby. Caring physicians and staff have to circumvent unfeeling administrators and ultimately join patients in a rebellion which leads to a new administrator but (it is implied) no major changes. Forrest Gump (1994), directed by Robert Zemeckis, screenplay by Eric Roth, from a novel by Winston Groom, and starring Tom Hanks, Sally Field, Robin Wright Penn, Gary Sinise, and Mykelti Williamson, was one of the most popular films of the late-twentieth century. A hapless simpleton becomes a Vietnam war hero in spite of himself by saving his lieutenant, who in turn exhibits post-traumatic stress disorder. Gump is an ordinary man stumbling around in an incomprehensible world. The War (1994), directed by Jon Avnet, written by Kathy McWhorter, and starring Kevin Costner and Elijah Wood, again shows us a victim of posttraumatic stress disorder. A Mississippi Vietnam veteran cannot hold a job, in part due to prejudice against veterans. He tries to be a peacemaker between his son’s gang and a group of poor children who live in a junkyard, but is compelled in spite of himself to fight one of the fathers on the other side. Plagued by guilt and nightmares because he failed to save

174 |

Film and Veterans

a friend in Vietnam, the veteran finally achieves peace when he saves his partner as they work in a mine together, although he dies in the process. The Vietnam-veteran-as-criminal appears again in Dead Presidents (1995), directed and written by Allen and Albert Hughes and starring Larenz Tate, Bokeem Woodbine, Chris Tucker, Martin Sheen, and Keith David. Vietnam veterans from the Bronx, New York, are changed into vicious criminals, robbing banks and killing others while wearing the masks of former U.S. presidents. Their lives before, during, and after the war are contrasted in the film to show how the war is responsible for their behavior. World War II and Korean War veterans appear respectively as a judge who sentences the ringleader to life in prison and a comic figure who defends himself with his prosthetic leg. The Spitfire Grill (1996), directed and written by Lee David Zlotoff, starring John M. Jackson, Alison Elliott, Ellen Burstyn, and Marcia Gay Hayden, is the story of reclusive Vietnam veteran Eli, who reads Homer’s Odyssey, the classic tale of a veteran who cannot come home. He is gradually drawn out of his shell by Percy, a young woman who, having been molested by and killed her stepfather (for which she served time in prison) is as disturbed as he is. Eli’s mother owns the Spitfire Grill, named after a World War II plane in the town of Gilead (where the famous African American spiritual promises a ‘‘balm to make the wounded whole’’). Eli carves sculptures of birds, symbolically replacing wartime with peacetime flight, his trapped situation with escape. Shades of Gray (1997), directed by John Houston—not to be confused with John Huston—was distorted by military

censors as it was filmed using real patients and doctors at a veterans’ hospital. Originally entitled ‘‘Let There Be Light,’’ the final version depicts the hospital in a favorable light, showing the treatment, and frequent curing, of veterans suffering from mental illness by means of hypnotism, counseling, and recreation. Although they appear as caring professionals, doctors blame childhood—especially mothers—rather than combat experience for maladjustment, and minority veterans are conspicuously absent. The Odyssey makes another appearance in Ulee’s Gold (1997), directed by Victor Nunez and starring Peter Fonda, Tom Wood, Christine Dunford, and Vanessa Zima. ‘‘Ulee,’’ the lame Vietnam veteran, is short for Ulysses, the Roman name for Odysseus, Homer’s veteran hero of the Trojan War. Ulee’s wife Penelope shares the name of Ulysses’s wife. They are seeking to lead a peaceful life—he is a beekeeper who produces honey—despite the terrible circumstances around them. Ulee’s son is a thief, his daughter a drug addict. Only his granddaughter shows any interest in his wartime experiences. Ulee is obliged to join in a plot by his son’s accomplices to recover money they stole to save his daughter-in-law, whom they hold as a hostage. He manages to foil their scheme without breaking his vow never to fight again, yet is also hostile to the local police. The veteran appears as a totally alienated yet reasonable man who just wants to be left alone. The Vietnam veterans’ films of 1998 were comedies. The Big Lebowski (1998), directed by Joel Cone, written by Joel and Ethan Cone, and starring John Goodman, Jeff Bridges, and David Huddleston is the story of a Vietnam

Film and Veterans War veteran who comically exaggerates every situation he confronts, relating it to his wartime experiences. Rushmore (1998) was directed by Wes Anderson, written by Anderson and Owen Wilson, and starred Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Olivia Williams, and Sara Tanaka. In this dark comedy, a wealthy but cynical and hostile manufacturer who has family troubles stages a play about Vietnam which ends in a draw between the hero (himself) and a female Viet Cong, indicating there were no winners in this war. Meanwhile, the play reflects the language, progress and public perception of the war. (See also African American Veterans, Vietnam War to Iraq War.)

Persian Gulf War In a remake of The Manchurian Candidate (2004), directed by Jonathan Demme and starring Jeffrey Wright, Pablo Schreiber, and Anthony Mackie, the soldiers are now brainwashed by their own government. The Manchurian Corporation now stands in for Manchuria, the part of China closest to Korea where the brainwashing occurred. The Jacket (2006), directed by John Mayburn, with screenplay by Massy Tadjedin from a story by Tom Bleecker and Marc Rocco, was adopted from a 1915 short story by Jack London, published under the same title in the British Isles. It starred Adrian Brody, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Kris Kristofferson. A war veteran is believed to be dead, but he awakens in a morgue. He is a misfit who is next falsely convicted of a murder committed by a hitchhiker he picks up. Sent to a mental hospital, the veteran is subjected to medical experiments, placed in a straitjacket, and foresees his death.

| 175

The veteran, who has special abilities to predict the future, is depicted as the victim of callous forces in the government, society, and hospital system. (See also Gulf War Veterans.)

Iraq War Three of the four major feature films dealing with Iraq War Veterans (see entry) as of the time this book went to press present them as psychologically disturbed, whereas one depicts them as heroes. In Harsh Times (2005), directed and written by David Ayer and starring Christian Bale and Freddy Rodriguez, an Iraqi veteran plagued by posttraumatic stress disorder and flashbacks of military life cannot adjust to civilian life in Los Angeles. He fails in his effort to be a policeman and is drawn into a tragic life of crime. Home of the Brave (2006), directed by Irwin Winkler and based on a screenplay and story by Mark Friedman, stars Samuel L. Jackson, Jessica Biel, Brian Priestley, 50 Cent, Christina Ricci, and Chad Michael Murray. It owes much to The Best Years of Our Lives, the classic film about World War II veterans who could not adjust to peacetime life. Four soldiers return home: a surgeon, a single mother who has lost a hand, a man whose best friend has been killed, and another who cannot forget the fact he killed a civilian woman. They suffer through therapy and the veterans’ hospital system feeling helplessness, despair, and rage. This is the only film to depict a female veteran as a major character. The Marine (2006), directed by John Bonito and written by Michelle Gallaher, stars John Cena, a real-life professional wrestler. He is an Iraq war veteran who continues his crusade against evil by

176 |

Film and Veterans

defeating criminals in Los Angeles who kidnap his wife. Stop-Loss (2007), directed by Kimberly Pierce and starring Ryan Philippe, Channing Tatum, Joseph GordonLeavitt, and Abie Cornish, deals with the plight of reservists sent to Iraq who are sent back again under ‘‘stop-loss’’ orders by the government. Required to serve in the field beyond their contracted time, veterans consider fleeing to Canada and forging papers but decide to return. They are also depicted as having

psychological problems adjusting to civilian life. William Pencak

Further Reading Early, Emmet. The War Veteran in Film. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland, 2003. Langman, Larry, and Ed Borg. Encyclopedia of American War Films. New York: Garland, 1989. Lembcke, Jerry. The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

G forbade what it termed ‘‘an assault with the intent to commit sodomy,’’ a policy confirmed by the Articles of War of June 4, 1920, which was then used to dismiss personnel who engaged in such acts even by mutual consent. The policy went into effect at the same time the ‘‘Red Scare’’ was in full sway, with local and federal officials deporting and prosecuting some real but many alleged Communists. In a comparable attempt to root out homosexuals, the U.S. Navy hired young men to become friendly with and seduce sailors at its base in Newport, Rhode Island, to discover homosexuals. An investigation by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee branded this a miscarriage of justice and the dragnet operation ceased. On the eve of World War II, openly gay personnel served in the military. The government considered homosexuals as psychologically sick rather than either criminals or people rationally choosing same-sex behavior, which led to their exemption from service during World War II, or their removal if they

GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER VETERANS There have been gay and lesbian soldiers since the days of the ancient Greeks and Amazons who fought them, respectively. In the United States, as the term homosexuality was not coined until the 1890s, soldiers engaging in ‘‘sodomy’’ were sometimes dismissed from the Continental Army and during the Civil War. But there was no standard practice or policy. For instance, letters survive from Colonel Alexander Hamilton and South Carolina Major John Laurens during the Revolutionary War that, even though excisions were made by one of Hamilton’s descendants, strongly suggest physical love occurred between these heroic officers. The first policy that mentioned homosexual behavior was included in the Articles of War promulgated on March 1, 1917, a month before the United States entered World War I. The military 177

178 |

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans

were found after they enlisted. Commanders had considerable leeway whether to investigate and punish the personnel involved, and those discovered received honorable or, more likely ‘‘general,’’ discharges for bad conduct which would hamper their opportunity for future employment. Fewer than 5,000 of 18 million men drafted during the war were dismissed for homosexual offenses, less than one-thirtieth of one percent. Only in the Uniform Code of Military Justice adopted after the war did Articles 125 and 134 make anal sex (even between married couples) a crime punishable by up to five years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if consensual, ten years if coerced, and loss of all benefits. In 1981, the Defense Department expanded on this policy by declaring ‘‘homosexuality incompatible with military service’’ and tending to diminish ‘‘discipline, good order, and morale’’ as well as leading to ‘‘breaches of security.’’ For the first time, the military raised the possibility that a homosexual orientation, as opposed to actual acts, could be grounds for prosecution. On gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) issues, the courts accept, as they do on almost all matters relating to national defense, the military’s own assessment of its needs. The major veterans organizations—the American Legion, AMVETS, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars—do not have an official position and their posts are free to accept or reject GLBT veterans, as they can any others. The Alexander Hamilton Legion Post in San Francisco, with a large gay membership, has supported the GLBT oral history project. Founded in 1984 by gay rights activist Dr. Paul Hardman, it regularly leads marches and protests in favor of equality for gay military personnel.

The current ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy was announced by President Bill Clinton in 1993, confirming the illegality of openly admitting to a homosexual orientation as well as performing homosexual acts in the military. Clinton was persuaded by the military, mobilized by Chief of Staff Colin Powell, not to fulfill his campaign promise to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The one legal protection for homosexuals offered by this policy is that benefits and rank can be restored if personnel were illegally asked to reveal their sexual identity: this occurred when Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer, head of the Military Nurse Service in the State of Washington National Guard, was dismissed in 1989 after having been asked if she was a lesbian when she applied to attend the Army War College. Restored to her rank and honorably discharged in 1997, she wrote an account of her dismissal and the lengthy legal process required to reinstate her, Serving In Silence, which became the basis of the film Breaking the Silence (1995) starring Glenn Close. The number of service personnel dismissed for homosexuality has remained constant since the 1980s in proportion to the number of total personnel. Three studies by the government, the Crittenden Report of 1957, the Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC) Sarbin-Karols Study of 1988, and the PERSEREC/McDanel Study of 1989 all concluded that homosexuality did not hamper military performance, and the last of these termed gay men ‘‘as good or better’’ than their heterosexual counterparts. None of these reports were released by the military until 1989 after Congressional pressure. The General Accounting Office Foreign Countries Study (1993) and the RAND

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans | 179 Corporation Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy Report (1994) found no lack of efficiency or loyalty in the Australian, Israeli, German, Canadian, and seven other armed forces, which allowed homosexuals to serve at the time, but concluded this data could not be applied to the significantly different U.S. armed services. In recent years, official military spokespeople have moved from criticizing the performance of GLBT personnel to the effect their presence has on other personnel, although polls indicate the majority of current personnel do not have problems with GLBT colleagues. Beginning in the 1970s, gays and lesbians in the military became active in their attempts to serve legally and openly. They also sought to obtain honorable discharges that would allow them to receive veterans’ benefits and eliminate the handicap of a less-than-honorable discharge in obtaining civilian employment. (As of 2009, a majority of states does not forbid employers from firing or not hiring homosexuals for that reason alone.) This campaign has two main strategies. The veterans educate the public and lawmakers by telling their stories through books, films, and oral histories, and by making them known through demonstrations, rallies, and in events such as pride parades. They also lobby lawmakers, endorse sympathetic candidates, and engage in legal action to change the law and nullify discharges obtained by ‘‘asking.’’ The first significant veteran to fight for the right to serve and crusade for gay military rights was Sergeant Leonard Matlovich (1943–1988), who appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in 1975 and was perhaps the best-known gay man in the nation in the 1970s. A former

Republican and Mormon (a religion that condemns homosexuality), Matlovich was able to win an honorable discharge and a settlement of $160,000 from the government in 1980. Ironically, his victory paved the way for the stricter construction of homosexuality by making a homosexual orientation as well as homosexual activity a ground for dismissal. At the same time, Matlovitch’s case served as an inspiration to other GLBT personnel. His tombstone in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, DC, reads ‘‘Never Again’’ and ‘‘Never Forget’’ above two pink triangles, the symbol of gay liberation, and ‘‘When I Was in the Military I Was Given a Medal for Killing Two Men and a Discharge for Loving One.’’ Numerous stories of gay and lesbian veterans are filed at the Library of Congress Veterans History Project. The most extensive project in the nation is coordinated by Professor Steve Estes of Sonoma State University, who has published the results of 60 interviews with personnel from World War II to the Iraq War. In 2006 the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society featured a temporary exhibit, ‘‘Out Ranks,’’ on GLBT experiences in the military. On the tenth anniversary of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ in 2003, Brigadier Generals Virgil Richard and Keith Kerr and Admiral Alan Steinman, all retired, were the first service personnel at this rank to openly admit their homosexuality in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. They all work for the abolition of the policy. Today, there are four important groups lobbying on behalf of lesbian and gay veterans. (1) American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER) was founded in 1996 as the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual

180 |

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans

Veterans of America (GLBVA). AVER champions the rights of lesbians, gays, and other sexual minorities to serve in the military and lobbies Congress and the Veterans Administration to recognize and deal humanely with the problems of such veterans. The national organization was preceded in 1985 by the New England Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Veterans. It also seeks to educate its members and the public about gay and lesbian issues generally, and holds a biennial convention. Services for veterans include efforts to upgrade and provide assistance for veterans with less than honorable discharges based on sexual orientation, information about veterans benefits and counseling, and an online newsletter, The Forward Observer, that details the activities of the different chapters. For instance, in 2007, the organization protested the military’s decision to accept convicted felons while refusing gay and lesbian recruits. (2) The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is ‘‘a non-partisan, non-profit, legal service, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel based on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.’’ It has handled over 9,000 legal requests since that policy became effective in 1993: over 12,500 personnel have been fired for their sexual preferences or activity since then. The Network publishes an 84-page survival guide online for the benefit of gay/lesbian military personnel on how to remain in the military, presents awards to activists who help gay and lesbians in the military, and tells the stories of gay and lesbian veterans to educate the public and lawmakers (online and through conventions, lobbying, etc.). (3) The ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue’’ database is maintained by the

Robert Crown Law Library of the Stanford University School of Law to aid discharged gay and lesbian veterans in pursuit of their rights. It contains primary materials on the U.S. military’s policy on sexual orientation, from World War I to the present, as identified in Professor Janet E. Halley’s book, Don’t: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s AntiGay Policy (1999), including legislation; regulations; internal directives of service branches; materials on particular service members’ proceedings (from hearing board transcripts to litigation papers and court decisions); policy documents generated by the military, Congress, the Department of Defense, and other offices of the Executive Branch; and advocacy documents submitted to government entities. (4) The Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) was founded in 2003 to represent what are believed to be the approximately 300,000 transgender and transsexual veterans—officially considered as afflicted with a gender identity disorder (GID)—in the United States. The organization was started by Monica Helms and Angela Brightfeather in 1993, both members of the Yahoo group list of TS (transsexual) Veterans, as the Veterans Committee of the National Transgender Action Committee. The immediate catalyst was in response to a transsexual veteran who was refused treatment at the Washington, DC, Veterans Hospital and obliged to go to Baltimore, which accepted him. Veterans Administration regulations forbid the use of facilities for sex change operations, leading some hospitals and officials to interpret this as the right to refuse other services to transgender individuals. Although it is not illegal for transgender people to serve in the military as it is with

Gettysburg National Cemetery | 181 gays and lesbians, there is still considerable prejudice against them. The organization has three goals: to ensure that the Veterans Health Administration’s Customer Service Standards to treat veterans ‘‘with courtesy and dignity . . . as the first class citizen that you are’’ applies to transgender individuals; to educate the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense about transgender and transsexual individuals and issues; and to help the transgender community in general. The organization researches laws, policies, and treatment concerning transgender individuals, recommends changes to the government, and works with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Lambda Legal to challenge inappropriate government behavior in the courts. Major activities of TAVA besides actual care include marches to lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown in Arlington National Cemetery, relief to Hurricane Katrina victims, and the formation of local chapters to attend national conventions. TAVA’s most extensive activity to date has been to contribute to interviews analyzed by the Palm Center of the University of California at Santa Barbara in a report issued in August 2008. The sample of 827 veterans interviewed revealed transgender and transsexual veterans are frequently denied their legal rights, being turned away from the Veterans Administration and hospitals, and not receiving respect (approximately 20 percent) from those treating or dealing with them, including being asked about their sexual orientation. They are frequently denied treatment made available to women veterans as a matter of course, such as pap smears, mammograms, prostate exams,

psychotherapy, and hormone treatments. Furthermore, they are discriminated against in the private sector. Nearly onethird of the survey participants reported having experienced discrimination in the workplace; 15 percent claim to have been fired because of their sexual orientation and 40 percent more than once. During his campaign, President Barack Obama promised to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, but as of mid-2009 had not yet issued an order. Statements from his advisors suggest he will only do so once Congress approves this change, although the president could make it by executive order. William Pencak

Further Reading American Veterans for Equal Rights. http:// aver.us/aver/. Estes, Steve. Ask and Tell: Gay and Lesbian Veterans Speak Out. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007. New England Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, & Transgender Veterans Inc. http://www. newengland-glbt-vets.org/. Rimmerman, Craig, ed. Gay Rights, Military Wrongs: Political Perspectives on Lesbians and Gays in the Military. New York: Garland, 1996. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. www.sldn.org. Transgender American Veterans Association. www.tavausa.org.

GETTYSBURG NATIONAL CEMETERY The Battle The Gettysburg National Cemetery was built on Cemetery Hill in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, close to the town’s

182 |

Gettysburg National Cemetery

existing cemetery, the Evergreen Cemetery, which was just south of town. When the famous battle was fought in 1863, the population of the town was about 2,500, as compared to just over 7,000 today. The battle came at a crucial moment in the Civil War, with the Union forces setting out to halt the Confederates by holding Cemetery Ridge—high ground which ran from Cemetery Hill to Little Round Top, the center of much of the fighting on the second day of the battle —with the result that there was fighting around the cemetery itself during the battle which lasted from July 1–3, 1863. At the end of the battle, Cemetery Ridge— an area about 100 feet higher than much of the nearby battlefield—was the object of Pickett’s Charge. In all, by the end of the fighting it was known that 3,903 Confederates from the Army of Northern Virginia were killed and 5,365 were missing—figures later revised to 4,427 killed and 5,592 missing. For the Union forces from the Army of the Potomac, 3,155 were killed and 5,425 posted as missing, a figure later revised to 5,365. There were also many others on both sides who subsequently died of wounds in the days and weeks after the battle— 12,179 Confederate soldiers, and 14,529 Union soldiers being reported wounded at Gettysburg. Indeed, the Confederate General James Johnston Pettigrew, the last to leave the field of battle after Pickett’s Charge, was mortally wounded when he led the rearguard of the Army of Northern Virginia when, on the night of July 13–14, they forded the Potomac to return to the South. Although the full casualty figures were horrific, the effect on individual units was even more telling. All the soldiers in the University Grays, a unit recruited from

the alumni of the University of Mississippi, were either killed or wounded. Every man in one company from a North Carolinas regiment was killed; and the 1st Minnesota Regiment lost 82 percent of its men in five minutes—the highest casualty rate of any Union regiment during the entire war. The town’s cemetery, the Gettysburg Evergreen Cemetery, was established in 1854 under the management of the Evergreen Cemetery Association, with a twostory brick gatehouse built at the entrance for the caretakers. It had two sections, connected by an arch over the gate. A sign at the entrance, which was observed by many during the battle, noted: ‘‘All persons found using firearms in the grounds will be prosecuted using the utmost vigor of the law.’’ At the start of the fighting it was a place of refuge for some of the civilians such as Tillie Pierce, a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl who fled from her home on Baltimore Street. On the afternoon of the first day of the battle, it was where Major General Winfield Scott Hancock arrived and, looking north, took command of the Union troops, rallying them after they had been driven through the town by the Confederate troops of Lieutenant General Richard S. Ewell and Lieutenant General A. P. Hill. A statue of Major General Hancock now stands on that spot. By this time Captain James A. Hall, whose Union battery was placed in the Evergreen Cemetery, recorded that some of the tombstones and iron fences had been badly damaged. Another account uncovered by Mark Dunkelman for his biography of Amos Humiston, written by Private Charles McKay, a 15-year-old from Allegany, noted, ‘‘We stacked arms among the old gravestones and watched with wondering eyes the scene that

Gettysburg National Cemetery | 183 presented itself in plain view just across the valley’’ (Dunkelman 1999, 115). On the second day of fighting, the Confederates under Lieutenant General Ewell again attacked the area around the cemetery gatehouse but with increased ferocity. By this time the Union forces were well ensconced on the grounds of the cemetery. Lieutenant George Breck, in a letter describing his actions at the Evergreen Cemetery, wrote, ‘‘A beautiful cemetery it was, but now is trodden down, laid a waste, desecrated. The fences are all down, the many graves have been run over, beautiful lots with iron fences and splendid monuments have been destroyed or soiled, and our infantry and artillery occupy those sacred grounds where the dead are sleeping . . . it was enough to make one mourn’’ (Gottfried 2008, 77). When Ewell attacked, his order from General Robert E. Lee to ‘‘sweep the hill, if practicable’’ has long been criticized as being too vague with his second attack being driven back by the Union forces. The Confederates were driven off, in part by Major George Benson Fox and his men of the 75th Ohio Infantry, with other Union soldiers under the command of Colonel Samuel Carroll. The action features in the famous painting of the fighting around the cemetery gatehouse—with the gatehouse itself the most prominent landmark—are by the New York war correspondent Edwin Forbes who was with the Army of the Potomac, based on a sketch he had made during the battle. The gatehouse was then taken over by the Union soldiers serving as the anchor of the ‘‘fish hook’’ defensive line. During the fighting, the gatehouse sustained some damage from incoming artillery shells, but was regarded as safe enough for Union officers to confer there. Indeed when General George Meade arrived at

the battlefield on July 2, he met General O. O. Howard inside the gatehouse and then, finding it too cramped, moved to his command to a farmhouse behind Cemetery Ridge where the other Union commanders were discussing the progress of the first day of the battle.

The Aftermath Because of the ferocity of the fighting, and the changes in the points the Confederates attacked, although some bodies would have been buried during the battle, most were not interred until the end of the fighting. Others, such as Lieutenant Bayard Wilkeson, the son of Samuel Wilkeson of the New York Times, were buried soon after they fell. Most were quickly buried in shallow graves, while others died of wounds in hospital stations or in the homes of people in the town who took in the injured to care for them. Local school teacher Elizabeth ‘‘Sallie’’ Myers was one of many locals who tended the wounded; 14-year-old Tillie Pearce looked after Union General Stephen Hinsdale Weed who had been shot and mortally wounded at Little Round Top. It was days before all the dead bodies were collected from around Gettysburg. When photographer Timothy H. O’Sullivan wandered around the battlefield on July 5 and 6, he photographed hundreds of bodies around the scene of the fighting. One of the casualties of the battle who has been heavily researched was Lieutenant Arad Linscott of the 20th Maine Regiment. He was injured with a bullet wound in his thigh and was in a field hospital on July 3, listed as wounded. However, he recovered sufficiently for doctors to decide that he was well enough to go home to convalesce.

184 |

Gettysburg National Cemetery

He reached his family but then contracted a virus, suffered from an infection, and died on July 27. Although technically he had died from an illness, the injury certainly hastened his demise, and veterans urged for him to be listed officially as having been mortally wounded and his name to be inscribed on the war memorial, although after this was done, no change was made in the number of soldiers officially listed as having died at the battle. With the caretaker from the Evergreen Cemetery being away in the Union forces, his wife, Elizabeth Thorn, although six months pregnant, had to help with the burial of nearly 100 soldiers. Mary Virginia ‘‘Ginnie’’ (or ‘‘Jennie’’) Wade, aged 20, was the only civilian killed during the Battle of Gettysburg—she had been shot by a sharpshooter’s stray bullet that passed through two doors—and was buried in the Evergreen Cemetery. Her grave was 100 feet away from that of Corporal Jack Skelly Jr., from the 87th Pennsylvania Infantry, her fiance´. When Jennie Wade, a seamstress, was shot dead, she had a photograph of Skelly in the pocket of the apron she was wearing. The Jennie Wade House Museum, located in her mother’s house in Gettysburg, tells her story—it is also believed by some to be haunted. About 5,000 horses and mules that were killed in the fighting. Most of the carcasses were not buried and were left to decompose throughout the rest of the summer. Eventually many were burned. Over the days and weeks after the battle, other bodies were also found around the battle site, especially among the denser parts of the woods near Little Round Top and Devil’s Den.

One of the bodies hastily buried after the battle was that of a New York soldier whose body was found at the corner of York and Stratton Streets in Gettysburg. He had been hit in the chest and obviously realized that the injury was mortal and had staggered there. He died clutching a photograph of his wife and three children. The body was buried near where it fell, the site being owned by a local judge S. R. Russell, and the photograph was taken by a nearby innkeeper. When Philadelphia doctor John Francis Bourns, who had been treating the wounded, heard of the story, he asked for the photograph and was given it, marking the grave in case the photograph could be subsequently identified. On October 19, 1863, the Philadelphia Press published a story entitled, ‘‘Whose Father Was He?’’ and the story was taken up by some other papers including the American Presbyterian, which included a copy of the photograph. In late November, hearing of the story, Philinda Humiston in Portville, New York, wrote to Bourns asking for a copy of the photograph and discovered that it was of her and her children. The grave was marked as that of her husband Amos Humiston, with Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper running an account of the entire story including a woodcut showing Humiston dying clutching the photograph. Stories such as that of Humiston led many people to feel that the quick burial of the Union soldiers was a wholly inadequate way to commemorate the men who died at the battle. With moral and financial support from Andrew G. Curtin, the governor of Pennsylvania, land around Cemetery Hill was purchased for a more fitting cemetery. Some people thought that it might be a good idea to

Gettysburg National Cemetery | 185 write to family members of the dead to request that they pay for the graves. However, this idea was quickly ruled out. People felt that forcing families to pay after the sacrifice of one of their members was unfair to their pain.

Origins of the National Cemetery Two local attorneys played important roles in getting the Soldiers’ National Cemetery at Gettysburg organized—it would become the Gettysburg National Cemetery in 1872. The first was David McConaughy (1823–1902). Educated at Gettysburg College 1836–1838, he had briefly worked as a teacher in Howard County, Maryland, practiced law in Gettysburg beginning in 1845, and had been in charge of the local intelligence gathering network for the Union forces prior to the battle—his third son was born five days before the battle began. He was also the man responsible for the establishment of the Evergreen Cemetery and became the principal organizer of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association, devising the initial concept of the cemetery and starting to plan for the relocation of the graves from sites scattered around the battlefield to this new cemetery. At that point a rival attorney, also a local, David Wills (1831–1894), took over the organizing—McConaughy went on to serve as a state senator from 1865 until 1868, and his son Samuel went on to be the secretary and treasurer of the Moravian Cemetery at Staten Island, New York. McConaughy was buried in the Evergreen Cemetery when he died, as have been six congressmen: George Jacob Benner, William Crawford, Joel Buchanan Danner, Edward McPherson,

Franklin Menges, and John Augustus Swope. John Burns, a veteran of the War of 1812, who at the age of 70 fought as a civilian at the Battle of Gettysburg, was also buried there when he died in 1872. David Wills was educated at Gettysburg College, graduated in 1851, and then studied law under the area’s congressman, Thaddeus Stevens, before practicing law. He was also director of the Gettysburg National Bank. He had the task of acquiring the land, overseeing the construction of the cemetery, and then organizing the dedication ceremony. Some 17 acres (69,000 square meters) was purchased for $2,475.87. The prominent horticulturalist and landscape architect William Saunders (1822–1900) had the responsibility of designing the cemetery, on a site which had to be cleared of trees. Saunders was born in Scotland and educated at the University of Edinburgh, moving to the United States in 1848. He then became involved in landscape gardening in Pennsylvania. He designed several civic parks and cemeteries, including the Rose Hill Cemetery in Chicago. From 1862 until his death Saunders was superintendent of Experimental Gardens of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC, where he had been the founder of the National Grange of the Order of Patrons and Husbandry. In his work at Gettysburg, he designed the cemetery with the Soldiers’ National Monument in the center. This was aimed at celebrating the Union victory, with the graves of the soldiers organized in a series of concentric rings (or strictly speaking, semicircles) around it. The entrance to the cemetery remained —and remains—the old Gettysburg Evergreen Cemetery Gatehouse off what is now Tennyson Road.

186 |

Gettysburg National Cemetery

All the graves were to be individual, with all gravestones the same size, showing that all the men were equal in death. The initial aim was to have the plots in a random order, but complaints from some states led to the graves being grouped by state, with one section for the regular army and two sections for those whose bodies had not been identified. This was unlike the burials following the Battle of Chattanooga on November 23–25, 1863, when an army chaplain asked Major General George H. Thomas about whether the dead there should be buried by states. Thomas is reported to have replied, ‘‘No, no, mix them up, I’m tired of states’ rights.’’

The Dedication The initial plan by Wills was that there should be a ceremony to dedicate the cemetery on September 23. However, when he contacted Edward Everett (1794–1865) to ask whether he would take part in the dedication, Everett replied that he had not been given enough notice to prepare such an important speech and suggested that the event be delayed, which it was. Everett, a former governor of Massachusetts, who had been professor of Greek literature at Harvard University, and briefly secretary of state—as well as being the vice-presidential candidate for the Constitutional Union Party ticket in 1860—later became a member of the Republican Party and was well-known as a powerful orator. On November 18, 1863, to take part in the dedication ceremony, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln traveled to Gettysburg and spent the night staying with David Wills at his house in the main square of the town. Lincoln usually declined invitations such as this, but when he received one from Wills, by this time the special

agent of Governor Curtin, he recognized that Gettysburg was special and decided that to ensure that he did not miss the ceremony, he would have to arrive the day before. On the following morning, November 19, people gathered around a platform built in the Evergreen Cemetery. There the chaplain to the U.S. Senate (and former chaplain to the U.S. House of Representatives) and one of the greatest antislavery preachers of that time, the Reverend Thomas Hewlings Stockton (1808–1868), began with a prayer. He was followed by the main speaker, Edward Everett, who made a long speech to the gathered crowd of about 15,000 which included the governors of six of the Union states: Andrew G. Curtin from Pennsylvania, Oliver P. Morton from Indiana, Augustus Bradford from Maryland, Joel Parker from New Jersey, Horatio Seymour from New York, and David Tod from Ohio, as well as four major generals (Darius Nash Couch, Ulysses Doubleday, Robert C. Schenck, and Julius Stahel), Brigadier General John Gibbon, Provost Marshal General Speed Smith Fry, the Secretary of State William H. Seward, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, and the Postmaster General Montgomery Blair. Everett spoke for 1 hour and 57 minutes—his speech was 13,607 words long—after which the band played a hymn composed by B. B. French. Abraham Lincoln then made his short Gettysburg Address, which lasted 2 minutes and 15 seconds. The photographer there to record the event, expecting a much longer oration from the president, had not even readied his camera by the time that Lincoln sat down, although a 1953 photograph by David Bachrach in the Mathew Brady collection of

Gettysburg National Cemetery | 187 photographic prints at the National Archives and Records Administration, in Washington, DC, of the dedication was found to show Lincoln, albeit out of focus. There was applause at five times during the address but when it was over Lincoln told a colleague that he felt his speech as ‘‘a flat failure.’’ Lincoln had made a point of speaking to the cemetery’s architect before the speech—Saunders was later to be commissioned to design the grounds for the Lincoln Memorial at Springfield, Illinois—and the president’s words were well crafted even though they did not create much of an impression on the people listening, partly because Lincoln’s voice did not carry well. The reporter from the British newspaper The Times was extremely critical but the Springfield Republican called the address ‘‘a perfect gem, deep in feeling, compact in thought and expression, and tasteful and elegant in every word and comma.’’ The handwritten copy of the speech was, at the request of Everett, auctioned at a Sanitary Fair in New York to raise money for soldiers, and Lincoln wrote another copy for sale at a Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Fair at Baltimore, which was retained by the historian George Bancroft and is now at Cornell University. Lincoln gave another two copies to his private secretaries John Nicolay and John Hay, and a fifth copy, the only one signed by Lincoln, was later written out for sale for charitable purposes. Some scholars believe the Nicolay copy was the actual one held by Lincoln when he made his speech as it has folds which are consistent with it having been folded up in Lincoln’s pocket. Soon after the actual address, the speech was published in newspapers throughout the northern states and also

overseas. It became recognized as encapsulating so succinctly and emotionally the sacrifice and death of so many people, not just at Gettysburg but elsewhere in the Civil War, and in war in general.

Subsequent Burials The reburial of the bodies of the 3,564 Union soldiers continued until March 1864. Six years later, in 1870, through the initiative of the Ladies Memorial Associations of Richmond, Raleigh, Savannah, and Charleston, the bodies of the Confederate soldiers were removed from the mass graves where they had been buried and taken to those four cities for reburial. 2,935 bodies were reinterred at the Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, with some 73 bodies sent back to other cemeteries at the express wishes of families of the deceased. The initiative started when press reports were published in the South that the Confederate dead were not being properly commemorated at Gettysburg. One person from Mississippi reported that the headboard of a colonel was decaying, and if nothing was quickly done about marking the burial spots, all the markings on the graves might be lost. With ploughs from farmers regularly uncovering the bones of more Confederate dead, on January 21, 1866, the Jackson Clarion (Mississippi) stated, ‘‘Let the fiends who cry out against Confederates for ill-treatment of their prisoners and dead think of this when they charge us with cruelty and fiendishness.’’ These outbursts had led, in 1871, to Charles Dimmock being commissioned, by the Hollywood Memorial Association, to survey the battlefield and work out the approximate costs of moving

188 |

Gettysburg National Cemetery

all the Confederate dead to Richmond. He claimed that some farmers wanted money to allow the Confederates to remain buried on their land, which was confirmed by investigations by the Army and Navy Journal. The initial $1,000 given to the Hollywood Memorial Association by the Virginia legislature was nowhere near the cost, with another $6,000 subscribed by people, including some Northerners. Many of the bodies, when they arrived in Richmond, were in coffins draped with the Confederate flag. This work for the Confederate dead continued through to 1873 with the result that the Gettysburg National Cemetery commemorates only the Union dead. David Wills was the president of the commissioners of the cemetery at Gettysburg until May 1, 1872, when control was transferred to the War Department, and the Gettysburg National Cemetery formally started using its new name. By this time a number of large monuments had been erected in and around the cemetery, and indeed across the battlefield. These included the large equestrian statue of the Union Major General Oliver Otis Howard on Cemetery Hill (which he held during the battle), with others commemorating states such as Pennsylvania, and also Virginia, and another for individual regiments such as the New York Light Infantry. The most impressive of the monuments is the Pennsylvania Monument which contains around it plaques which list on them the names of all 34,530 officers and enlisted men from the state who fought at the battle. With the Spanish-American War of 1898, some families of American service personnel who died in that war wanted their relatives to be buried at the Gettysburg National Cemetery, and the War

Department agreed to this. There were also further interments of the bodies of U.S. service personnel who died in World War I.

Reunions By this time the cemetery was well known, with regular reunions (see Reunions, Civil War Veterans). Many of these were organized by the veterans of the 69th Pennsylvania Regiment who, in 1887, formed the Philadelphia Brigade Association. They immediately set about establishing the Philadelphia Monument on the battlefield and also invited the men of Pickett’s Division Association to attend ‘‘in a spirit of fraternity, charity and loyalty.’’ The Confederate veterans attended, including many family members and also LaSalle Corbell Pickett, George Pickett’s widow, and their son. The Union band played Dixie and the Confederates marched across the fields at the site of Pickett’s Charge, and at the end shook hands with the Union veterans. All also took part in ceremonies to commemorate the dead at the Gettysburg National Cemetery. Subsequent reunions took place, but the most lavish to date was held in 1913 for the 50th anniversary of the battle. Former Union Brigadier-General H. S. Huidekpper, who as a lieutenant colonel had lost his right arm at the battle, was a major mover, with the State of Pennsylvania agreeing to foot the bill of $450,000, the federal government later adding $150,000 and also support from the U.S. Army. More than 530,000 Confederate and Union veterans from 46 states attended—including 22,000 from Pennsylvania, of whom 303 had fought for the Confederacy. The oldest veteran was Micyah Weiss,

Gettysburg National Cemetery | 189 who was aged 112, and came from New York by automobile. The youngest was John Lincoln Clem, aged 61, who had run away from home at the age of 10 and had been a drummer boy at the Battle of Shiloh. Initially Woodrow Wilson had chosen not to attend. Being the son of a Confederate who as a young boy had seen the destruction of the war, he finally arrived on July 4 giving an hour-long speech. Also in 1913 Daniel Edgar ‘‘Dan’’ Sickles managed to visit Gettysburg six months after he had avoided arrest and imprisonment for having embezzled money from the New York Monuments Commission. He had been a moving force in the creation of the Gettysburg National Military Park, and when asked whether he was disappointed that there was no monument commemorating him on the battlefield, exclaimed, ‘‘Hell, the whole dammed battlefield is my memorial.’’ Sickles died the following year. On the week from June 29 until July 6, 1938, for the 65th anniversary of the battle, there was the last great reunion of the veterans of the battle with 1,359 Union veterans and 486 Confederates, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicating the Eternal Light Peace Memorial in front of 500,000 Americans and others. The memorial denotes the site north of the town where General Robert Rodes sent his Confederate Division into action threatening the Union soldiers deployed at McPherson Ridge and Oak Ridge. By that time, members of the Sons of the Union and Confederate Veterans associations regularly camped and drilled at the battlefield, commemorating the sacrifice of so many at the cemetery.

Other Sites at Gettysburg Honoring Veterans Gettysburg National Military Park was established by the Gettysburg Battle Field Memorial Association in 1864 and taken over by the U.S. government 31 years later. The impetus for this came largely from a concern that there were plans to build a railroad across the site. In 1933 it was taken over by the National Park Service. Now covering 2,530 acres, with 83 statues and 800 other monuments, it covers most of the battlefield, and, along with the Gettysburg National Cemetery, attracts thousands of visitors each week. One of those who first visited as a West Point cadet in 1914 was Dwight D. Eisenhower who, in 1950, bought a farmstead which, during the battle, had been a field hospital for the Confederates. In 1961 when Eisenhower left the White House, he moved to the farm and died eight years later in Washington, DC. By that time a Gettysburg Visitor Center had been opened on the west of Tennyson Road, opposite the Cemetery Gatehouse, and a Cyclorama Center was built a little further south, with a car park between the two centers, and further parking north of the Visitor Center. All access to the cemetery itself remains on foot, although there is a small car park in the National Cemetery Annex which was later built north of the Gettysburg National Cemetery. In 2008, a new Visitor Center opened replacing the Cyclorama and existing one. In addition to the cemetery and monuments on grounds owned by the national government, the town of Gettysburg and adjacent area abound with private museums and souvenir shops. Justin Corfield

190 |

GI Bill of Rights

See also Grand Army of the Republic; Battlefield Preservation; Civil War Veterans

Further Reading Blair, William A. Cities of the Dead. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Brew, Cowan. ‘‘We Here Highly Resolve.’’ Military Heritage: The Battle of Gettysburg Special Issue (Summer 2005): 70–71, 76. Coddington, Edwin B. The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. New York: Scribner/Macmillan, 1968. Desjardin, Thomas A. ‘‘America’s Flawed Vahalla.’’ Military History, August 2004: 26–32, 78. Dunkelman, Mark H. Gettysburg’s Unknown Soldier: Life, Death and Celebrity of Amos Humiston. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999. ‘‘Gettysburg National Military Park and Cemetery.’’ Civil War Times Illustrated, February 1981. Gottfried, Bradley M. The Artillery of Gettysburg. Nashville: Cumberland Publishing, 2008. Gramm, Kent. November: Lincoln’s Elegy at Gettysburg. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001. Hassler, Warren W., Jr. Crisis and the Crossroads: The First Day at Gettysburg. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1970. Hymel, Kevin. ‘‘The Fate of One Unheralded New York Soldier Touched the Conscience of Thousands of Affected Northerners.’’ Military Heritage 7, no. 2 (October 2005): 14–17, 71. McKelvey, Blake, ed. ‘‘George Breck’s Civil War Letters from Reynolds Battery.’’ Rochester Historical Society Publications 22 (1944): 91–149. Niderost, Eric. ‘‘Reunions at Gettysburg.’’ Military Heritage: The Battle of Gettysburg Special Issue, Summer 2005: 72–73, 78.

Patterson, John S. ‘‘A Patriotic Landscape: Gettysburg 1863–1913.’’ Prospects 7 (1982): 315–33. Pfanz, Harry W. ‘‘From Bloody Battlefield to Historic Shrine.’’ Civil War Times Illustrated, July 1963. Pfanz, Harry W. Gettysburg: Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1993. Pfanz, Harry W. Gettysburg: The Second Day. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1987. Sandburg, Carl. Abraham Lincoln. London: Jonathan Cape, 1955. Sandburg, Carl. ‘‘Just a Hundred Years Ago.’’ National Geographic Magazine, July 1963: 1–57. Swain, Robert L. ‘‘Generals at Odds.’’ Military History, July/August 2006: 38–45. Trudeau, Noah Andre. Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Tucker, Glenn. High Tide at Gettysburg. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1958. Wills, Garry. Lincoln at Gettysburg. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.

GI BILL OF RIGHTS See Servicemen’s Readjustment Act

GOLD STAR MOTHERS See American Gold Star Mothers

GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC The Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) was a national organization of Union Civil War veterans. Formed in the 1860s, the organization developed into an important political and social institution. Politically, the GAR was a major

Grand Army of the Republic voting bloc for the Republican Party, and in the 1870s–1890s the GAR pushed for increased pensions for veterans, eventually amounting to more than a third of the federal budget. Socially, the GAR cared for its members in a system of poor relief. As a fraternal organization, it was also important to Victorian American society. Mingling political and social roles, in the 1890s the GAR promoted patriotism and ‘‘correct’’ historical views in school classrooms and textbooks.

Founding The founder of the Grand Army of the Republic was Benjamin Franklin Stephenson, a medical doctor from Illinois who had served in the Union Army. As early as 1864, Stephenson and William J. Rutledge, the chaplain of Stephenson’s unit, may have made plans to create a veterans’ organization at war’s end. By 1865, Stephenson had drafted the ritual for what would become the GAR. He was a member of the Odd Fellows, another secret fraternal organization of nineteenth-century America, so he was familiar with the rituals of that organization, and he also borrowed part of the ritual of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ League, an earlier veterans’ organization. Stephenson and 14 other officers met in conference and formed the nucleus of the new organization. The first post of the Grand Army was chartered in Decatur, Illinois, on April 6, 1866. The organization grew rapidly. When the statewide Department of Illinois was founded in July, it had 39 posts. In November the GAR held its first national encampment, and members attended from posts in 12 states and the District of Columbia. That rapid growth continued throughout the 1860s.

| 191

Stephenson’s ostensible purpose for the GAR was comradeship, and there is little reason to discount that motive. From its earliest days the GAR was a fraternal organization, and most of its activity was fraternal. But for others of the GAR organizers and for much of its membership, fraternalism was second to politics. Two men in particular intended to use the GAR as a political power base: John Logan and Richard Oglesby. Oglesby was the governor of Illinois, and Logan was a general in the Union army who had been politically active throughout the war. Both men saw the Grand Army as a potential Republican voting bloc. The Union army had influenced politics during the war, so Logan and Oglesby’s idea was not without precedent. During the war, some states had permitted soldiers to vote absentee, while others made no such provision; the choice was usually made based on whether the party in power thought the soldier vote would help or hurt its cause. Political Union generals ensured that their troops had absentee ballots, and sometimes troops were furloughed to vote in their home states. Political pamphlets were distributed to the soldiers in camps, and officers subjected their men to political harangues. While Democrats tried to take advantage of the soldiers’ absence to elect antiwar politicians, Republicans used the soldiers’ votes to good effect, as most soldiers overwhelmingly voted for the party that supported the war. Logan’s scheme was eventually successful, and the GAR helped further his political career. In 1868–1870, he was the GAR commander in chief. During his tenure, Logan used inspectorsgeneral to keep order in the far-flung posts, sending them to draw up

192 |

Grand Army of the Republic

This 1884 print celebrates the leading Union veterans’ organization, the Grand Army of the Republic. [Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-pga-02019]

membership lists that he used on behalf of both Republican candidates (in Illinois) and himself. Though the highest office he ever reached was U.S. senator, he was several times mentioned as a possible Republican nominee for president.

Politics Soon after its founding, the GAR had a chance to play at least a peripheral role in national politics. The GAR was born amidst bitter contention between President Andrew Johnson who had clashed with the radical Republicans who controlled Congress. Congress favored civil rights for freedmen, while the president opposed them. The battle

came to a head over the appointment of a new secretary of war. The head of the War Department was an important position, because it was a cabinet-level post and because the department controlled the military forces enforcing Reconstruction in the South that were so vital to Reconstruction. Edwin Stanton was secretary of war by Lincoln’s appointment, but in 1866 Johnson fired him and appointed Lorenzo Thomas in his place. Congress refused to confirm the new appointment or even to recognize the president’s authority to fire Stanton. Stanton retained control of the War Department and fortified himself in his office, while Thomas tried repeatedly but unsuccessfully to expel him.

Grand Army of the Republic With the government in Washington very nearly at the point of blows for days, the GAR unequivocally declared its support for Congress and Stanton. GAR members formed part of Stanton’s guard, and other Grand Army veterans telegraphed that they were ready to arm themselves and march on Washington in Congress’s defense. No violence ever came of the confrontation—though Congress did impeach Johnson—but it was one of the few times that the GAR ever threatened forcible intervention in a political dispute. The Grand Army proved more influential in the 1868 presidential election. For that election, both parties considered running veterans as candidates to appeal to the sizeable veteran vote: over a million men had served in the Union military. George B. McClellan, popular general of the Army of the Potomac, was often mentioned for the Democratic ticket, though he declined to run. The Democrats instead ran Horatio Seymour, the antiwar governor of New York who bore the blame for the New York draft riots; the Democrats thus effectively gave up the veteran vote. The Republicans, on the other hand, ran Ulysses S. Grant, the general credited with winning the war. Of course, party politics were too complicated for any one cause to explain a nomination or the outcome of an election. Nevertheless, Grant beat Seymour handily, taking the veteran vote in the process. The GAR actively campaigned for Grant, and so helped make him president. The GAR continued to have a long influence on presidential politics—always in favor of the Republicans. Among the members of the Grand Army, for example, were presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield,

| 193

Benjamin Harrison, and William McKinley. But not too much should be made of the Grand Army’s Republican leanings. Some GAR members were Democrats, and the GAR supported Democrat candidates who were veterans over non-veteran Republicans. Then too, the GAR was probably not that decisive in that they consistently favored Republicans since most Northeners after the Civil War voted Republican. Though the Grand Army was influential in Republican politics, both its contemporaries and historians have overemphasized its partisanship. After its first years as a political machine, in 1869 the GAR made a rule forbidding partisanship: ‘‘No officer or Comrade of the Grand Army of the Republic shall in any manner use this organization for partisan purposes, and no discussion of partisan questions shall be permitted at any of its meetings, nor shall any nominations for political office be made.’’ Also in 1869, the GAR removed from its constitution the goal of electing veterans. That disavowal of partisan intent—not always consistent with the GAR’s later actions—took the organization out of electoral politics, but left the GAR free to exert other types of political influence. In later decades the Grand Army became a powerful lobby for pensions and patriotism. The GAR also sometimes intervened in labor disputes as a volunteer militia against the strikers, as in some coal miners’ strikes in Pennsylvania in 1877. (See also Politics, Veterans in.)

Membership Little in the way of qualification was required to join the Grand Army. One needed only to have been a soldier during the Civil War in the Union military,

194 |

Grand Army of the Republic

whether in the army, navy, marine corps, or Revenue Cutter Service, and to have either continued in the service or been honorably discharged. There were a few other stipulations, notably that no one could join the GAR who had fought for the Confederacy, even if he later fought for the Union. Beyond that there were no formal requirements of rank or service—one need not have been an officer nor to have seen combat. Rather, to join the Grand Army one needed only to have been a veteran. That simple requirement helped the members of the GAR to create a new identity for themselves—an identity as veterans. Fraternal organizations were not unusual in the Gilded Age; the GAR was just one among the Masons, Knights of Pythians, Grange, Odd Fellows, Ku Klux Klan, Knights of Labor, Improved Order of Red Men, and dozens of others. Being a veteran, then, was key to the identity that veterans crafted for themselves. After the war, the veterans were rapidly discharged, and they had to make their own way back into civilian life without assistance. That transition, though difficult for many, was not burdened with the sense of failure or disillusionment. The veterans had clearly accomplished their objectives of defeating the South and preserving the Union. Being a veteran was honorable, and an identity as a veteran was desirable. After earlier wars, ex-soldiers saw themselves as civilians who happened to be former soldiers, but members of the GAR saw themselves as being veterans—the saviors of the Union. The difference can be seen in the GAR’s attitude to civilians, for whom they often had harsher words than for their former enemies, the Confederate veterans.

The veteran’s identity was both national and local. The war had been a national experience involving the country’s fate and most of its citizens. The GAR too was a national organization. It had posts in nearly every state (including most of the South), it was overseen by a national bureaucracy, and its annual encampments were national gatherings. Its concerns were also national: pensions, patriotism, and politics. But the war had also been a local experience, for soldiers usually fought with units organized from their hometowns and states. The GAR likewise was a local organization, because the center of the GAR membership was the local post. In some big cities where there were many posts, the post was not just a local organization but a neighborhood gathering. The posts dealt with local matters, such as charity and politics. But though membership requirements were simple, not everyone was welcome to share the veteran’s identity. Though stipulations for membership were controlled at the national level, admitting members was a matter for each post. To join a post, a potential initiate needed the sponsorship of an existing member. The whole post then voted on his application in secret; any negative vote vetoed prevented him from joining. Posts were thus able to control their membership and create the type of organization they wanted. Most obviously, membership in the Grand Army was limited to men. Fraternal organizations were a sphere of male influence during the Victorian era, a time when the female-dominated home was the center of middle- and upper-class society. In the post room, men could celebrate the bonds of comradeship and fraternalism. The sole exception was Sarah Emma Evelyn Edmonds, who joined the

Grand Army of the Republic GAR in 1884. During the Civil War she had disguised herself as a man, going by the name Frank Thompson, and served in the army as a nurse and a spy, until she deserted to avoid being found out when ill. Edmonds was even granted a pension by Congress. Edmonds’s case, however, was hardly typical and did not affect the GAR’s male-only identity. Women, such as Lucy Nichols of New Albany, Indiana, a black nurse who served heroically in several campaigns, could be honorary members. The GAR was an interracial organization and not, as some scholars believe, a racially segregated group. Because black and white soldiers had served together in the Civil War, most white veterans believed that their organization should include African American veterans as their political equals. No other nineteenth-century social organization granted black Americans this status. The existence of all-black posts suggests the GAR was segregated; however, African Americans created these organizations for their own reasons and not because they were forced into all-black organizations by their white counterparts. Black posts formed in the vast majority of urban areas with enough black veterans to sustain a post and, together with their women’s auxiliary organizations, these groups played an important role in the life of the local African American community. The single most critical function of these organizations of the black posts was to fight the efforts of those who would forget slavery and the black military experience in the Civil War. The notion that the GAR was a segregated group is put to rest by the existence of hundreds of integrated posts in cities and town across the United States. While GAR officials encouraged interracial

| 195

posts, joining a predominantly white post was sometimes difficult because only a handful of white members could reject a black applicant. Despite these challenges, African Americans affiliated with predominantly white posts in large cities such as Hartford, Connecticut, and small towns such as Massillon, Ohio. The memory of shared suffering in the Civil War created the GAR’s interracial comradeship and allowed black and white veterans to overcome racial separation in an era defined by the color line (see African American Veterans, Civil War). A more subtle distinction of the race question was the ethnicity of GAR members. Antebellum immigration had come primarily from the British Isles and western Europe; in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, new waves of immigrants came from eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. While immigration diversified the country, the Grand Army retained its predominantly western European ethnicity because all its members had been present in the United States by the 1860s. The GAR thus favored nativist politics and had a nativist membership, but that characteristic was only incidental. The GAR does not belong in the same camp as other nativist groups whose raison d’eˆtre was nativism, such as the Ku Klux Klan. Class was a more ambiguous criterion for membership than gender or race. Some posts were exclusive to upper-class members, because their members refused to accept members of a lower station and because they set initiation fees and dues prohibitively high. Other posts, however, catered to lower-class members and set dues that were quite affordable. In locations with multiple posts, few veterans were excluded from membership on the basis of class; if one post would not take

196 |

Grand Army of the Republic

a man, he could join another. Nor was class a requirement for leadership in the GAR. Former officers and enlisted men were—at least in theory—equal when it came to balloting for positions as post officers, and many privates became post commanders, and some even became commanders in chief of the order. On the whole, though, GAR members tended to be businessmen and professionals, perhaps because the fraternal functions of the order appealed more to the middle class and the elites, perhaps because those groups could better afford to spend time and money on membership. More important for excluding veterans from membership than class was length of service. Though technically any veteran could join the GAR, in practice posts blackballed short-term soldiers. By limiting membership to veterans whose service was more considerable than a few weeks of camping and some drill, the Grand Army protected the value of membership, thus protecting the value of the veteran’s identity. A few generalizations, then, can be made about GAR members. The membership was exclusively male. Members tended to be middle class and above, but only because working-class veterans chose not to join the GAR at as high a rate. Rank meant little (but not nothing) in determining the status of a member, but length and quality of service mattered a great deal. Posts tended to be widely diverse; there was no typical post. Some were exclusively upper class, others were lower class. Some catered to certain ethnicities. Some posts were composed of cavalrymen; some of sailors; some of infantrymen; but most were mixed. In short, only one characteristic was shared by all GAR members—they were all veterans.

Organization The Grand Army was organized into posts, or local gatherings. The posts were led by a commander and other officers, elected from the membership. The membership also set its dues and regulations. Posts were sometimes numbered or sometimes named after military figures. They were organized into departments, a group of all the posts in a state or at most two states. The departments were likewise organized into a national encampment, an annual gathering held in a different city each year. Delegates to the national encampment who were chosen at the department level made policy for the Grand Army, such as revising the ritual. At the head of the GAR was the commander in chief, elected annually. The commander in chief had the most influence on policy, but also important was the judge advocate-general. His court refereed disputes between the members and made decisions about the ritual (see below) and membership. The judge advocate-general heard many cases; for minor disputes the GAR almost had its own private justice system. For a certain set of offenses, the judge advocategeneral could expel members: disloyalty to the United States, disobeying the orders of a GAR officer, law-breaking, conduct unbecoming a soldier and a gentleman, and conduct prejudicial to good order. Public drunkenness was the most frequent cause for expulsion. While the orders of officers and the decisions of the judge advocate-general were of limited effect because the order was voluntary, the GAR seems to have maintained fairly strict discipline. Indeed, so far from resisting discipline, discipline may have been precisely what attracted many members to the order.

Grand Army of the Republic The GAR had means of promulgating its opinions and affecting the opinions of its members, including several publications. One publication was the Grand Army Record, the newspaper of the organization. The Grand Army Blue Book was a collection of rules, mostly the work of Robert Beath, who in 1889 also published a history of the GAR. The Blue Book was a code of the rules of the order, with annotations giving the substance of opinions by the judge advocate-general.

Ritual Like other fraternal organizations, the Grand Army had a secret ritual with which it initiated members. The ritual knit the veterans together in the secret society, and it instilled in them the ideals of the GAR. The rituals of other fraternal organizations were intended as initiation into manhood—an initiation veterans did not need. Rather, though the GAR borrowed parts of its ritual from Freemasonry, military traditions, and the rituals of earlier veterans’ organizations, its ritual was intended to present in an allegory the motto of the GAR: ‘‘Fraternity, Charity, and Loyalty.’’ The initiation ritual began with the recruit approaching a sentinel, who stopped him. When a patrolling officer came to the recruit, he was questioned about his service record, and administered an oath of secrecy. Blindfolded and covered with a blanket—intended to symbolize being a prisoner of war—the recruit was marched about the post room, stopping at a box in the shape of a coffin. On the coffin was the name of some prisoner who had died in Andersonville, a prison camp run by Confederates. Also on the coffin was a Bible, crossed swords, and a

| 197

flag. After being administered another oath of secrecy, the recruit swore to care for fellow veterans through such duties as employing them and giving them charity and patronage. The guards who had escorted the ‘‘prisoner’’ recruit, who was still blindfolded, were commanded to shoot the recruit, but the officer in charge intervened only at the last moment, crying out that he was a ‘‘soldier and a brother’’ and uncovering him to see the coffin and display. After that ritual, the post commander usually gave a speech. In the earliest days of the GAR, the speech was as likely as not a political harangue, but later it was usually about the duty of veterans. Ritual pervaded even regular post meetings. The officers sat in a complex seating arrangement, with the commander at one end of the room and the vice commander at the other, and other officers at the sides of the room. In the middle was an altar, on which stood crossed swords, an open Bible, and a ballot box during elections. The seating plans thus formed a cross, which matched Christian symbolism in other parts of the ritual. Entering the post required a series of salutes and passwords to both outer and inner sentinels. Besides the ritual, GAR members wore uniforms, intended to present a martial appearance, and they had a badge of membership. The ritual was promulgated by the national encampment, but it varied from post to post and was revised over time. The 1869 encampment introduced grades, roughly parallel to the Masonic system. The GAR grades adopted were recruit, soldier, and veteran. Each grade had its own badge, secret grip, and password. To advance to each grade required a separate initiation ritual. Based on the GAR motto ‘‘Fraternity, Charity, and Loyalty,’’ the first ritual was an allegory of fraternity, the second of charity, and

198 |

Grand Army of the Republic

the third of loyalty. These grades were probably intended to imitate the Masons and other fraternal orders and to keep men from the competing orders. Nevertheless, the introduction of grades was a colossal mistake. GAR members hated it, and many resigned. The new system had required that every member be mustered back in—in many cases, probably with additional initiation fees—and so many simply refused to rejoin the organization. Perhaps more important was the veterans’ distaste for artificial gradations. As soldiers they had already had clearly defined ranks— and those ranks had actually meant something. The fraternal ranks, however, were civilian ranks. Furthermore, what was appealing about the GAR was its lack of rank; in the GAR an ex-private had, in theory, as much opportunity as an ex-general to become post commander or commander in chief, and some privates did. Being a veteran as opposed to a civilian meant more to GAR members than being a particular gradation of veteran. In short, the fraternal ranks disturbed the equal fraternity of the GAR and introduced an unwanted civilian component. Accordingly, GAR membership dropped and remained at all-time lows even after the system was repealed in 1871. Membership which was 240,000 in 1869, was 25,000 in 1871. Other causes contributed to low membership in the 1870s. Americans may have wanted to put the war behind them. The early partisanship of the GAR may have dissuaded any but radical Republicans from joining the GAR until its partisanship decreased. Furthermore, the Depression of 1873 may have made it difficult for some veterans to afford initiation fees. The Grand Army gradually

relaxed its rules in the 1870s and 1880s, but membership grew only slowly until it reached its peak in 1890. In that year, the GAR could boast some 351,244 members in 6,928 posts. But even at that peak, the GAR had as members less than half of the living veterans. The ritual—like the rules—was gradually softened, so that it was less overtly political and less harrowing, did not involve a blindfold, and was more fraternal than military. The result was probably an increase in membership, even if some members with stiffer collars regretted the decline in military exactness. The GAR became increasingly like a fraternal order, and so it became increasingly more civilian.

Charity As the GAR retreated from its role in electoral politics and as its membership grew, it became more important as a social institution. Its most important social role was as a dispenser of charity. Before 1888, each post was required to have a relief fund for the aid of its members and other veterans. After 1888, that fund was optional, but many posts continued to maintain it. From dues and voluntary contributions by members, posts distributed relief, primarily to its members but also to other veterans in their communities. The financial relief that GAR posts provided to veterans tended to be onetime gifts, not repeated support. The GAR wanted to promote the independence and self-sufficiency of its members. One-time relief given to a veteran who had fallen upon hard times and needed help promoted independence, by allowing the veteran to recover and reestablish himself. But relief offered

Grand Army of the Republic continually without a definite end in sight, it was feared, created dependence. For those veterans who did need longterm support, the federal government provided pensions to disabled veterans and their dependents. This goal of preserving but not destroying independence through charity caused some veterans to oppose calls for increased pensions late in the nineteenth century (see separate entry, Pensions, Civil War). Besides monetary aid, fellow GAR members often provided services to veterans in need. A lawyer might represent a member in court, or a doctor might treat a sick comrade. Posts often had a designated post surgeon, who provided medical services to members. GAR posts also paid for their members’ funerals, so that no veteran would be buried in a pauper’s grave. Only wealthy members, who could well afford the cost of a funeral for themselves, did not have their funerals paid for. The posts also attended the funerals, though more prominent members were more likely to have well-attended funerals. For members who asked for it, the GAR would even perform the service at the funeral, mixing Christian symbolism with military ritual. The aid that posts could give their members was at best uneven. Wealthier posts were less likely to have members in need of charity, while poorer posts had more people with needs. Wealthier posts had surpluses that they gave to national or international charities, or that they contributed to other posts; smaller posts had to restrict their charity to members. Economic hard times in the 1870s and 1890s also made it difficult for members to contribute dues and for posts to meet the increased demands for charity.

| 199

Pensions, Civil War The GAR is best known for its agitation for veterans’ pensions in the late nineteenth century. Despite initial opposition of some veterans, the GAR was eventually able to persuade Congress to grant pensions that created an unprecedented welfare state—for Union veterans and their families, that is. The federal government began a disability pension for Union veterans in 1862. Any veteran who was disabled because of his military service or his dependents if he were dead qualified for a pension. The idea, in President Lincoln’s words, was ‘‘to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan,’’ but only for those who truly needed help. The idea that any veteran deserved a pension just for his service, and not for disability, was contrary to the prevailing idea of what a pension should be. And not even all veterans who qualified claimed that limited pension; through the 1870s only about 43 percent of qualifying veterans applied for the pension. The movement for increased pensions began in 1877 with GAR member George Lemon. The first concession from Congress was the Arrears Act of 1879. The act permitted disabled veterans who had been entitled to a pension since 1862 but who had not claimed it to receive the arrears of their pension in a lump sum. Though the act did not increase the number of veterans who qualified for pensions, it did increase federal payouts, and it raised the profile of the pension issue. In the 1880s, the GAR continued its lobbying for veterans at the state law. The GAR urged states to enact laws that would relieve impoverished veterans

200 |

Grand Army of the Republic

and give veterans preference in hiring for state jobs. The Grand Army also lobbied for improved conditions at veterans’ asylums, which began to be called Old Soldier’s Homes. The change from asylum to home was an important one in Victorian America, where the home was the center of social life (see also Veterans’ Homes). In 1886, Congress considered a bill that would have given each veteran eight dollars a month as a pension. That type of pension, based on service rather than disability, represented a changed idea of what a pension should be—from caring for veterans in need to giving each veteran a continual entitlement. Many veterans, even among the GAR membership, opposed service pensions, wanting to maintain their independence; they considered their service to the Union to have been a patriotic duty that required no repayment. In the 1880s, a service pension was politically unfeasible. By the 1890s, the GAR had a pension committee, but that committee opposed service pensions. The change in the GAR’s attitude towards pensions came because of persuasive arguments why a pension would not take away from veterans’ independence and why veterans were entitled to pensions. The first part of the argument was that the federal government had to distribute the excess federal revenue. (The federal government had a budget surplus from 1866 to 1893 because of heavy tariffs.) Second, veterans argued that increasing the availability of pensions would decrease pension fraud. Third, and most important, the veterans argued that they deserved pensions as their right because they had saved the nation. This argument, intended to tug at the heartstrings (and purse strings)

of Congress, flipped the argument about independence on its head. The point was not that if the nation gave pensions to veterans it would make them dependent, but that the nation owed veterans pensions because it had depended on them. The Grand Army, which was becoming one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States, eventually lobbied for a service pension. It never got one, but the Dependent Pension Act of 1890 was practically the same thing. That act gave pensions to any veteran who had served for 90 days and who was too disabled to do manual labor. The disability need not have been the result of military service—even old age qualified. Nearly every veteran eventually qualified for a pension, and pension rates were raised several times. In 1893, 41.5 percent of the federal revenue was spent on pensions; in 1910, a half million veterans received an average pension of $189 per year. (See also separate entry, Pensions, Civil War.)

Memory and Patriotism Another issue in which the GAR involved itself was the memory of the Civil War. Decoration Day, which later became Memorial Day, was the GAR’s first contribution toward crafting a remembrance of the war. While commander in chief of the order in 1868, John Logan issued General Order Number 11, which established Decoration Day for GAR members. Borrowing an idea from Confederate graves that he saw in Virginia, Logan ordered GAR members to decorate the grave of every Union soldier on May 30. The observance became an annual tradition on a certain Monday every May. On the

Grand Army of the Republic Sunday before Decoration Day, GAR members attended church in their uniforms wearing GAR badges. On Monday itself, they decorated graves and held graveyard services. The GAR encouraged the memorializing of Civil War veterans throughout its existence. Post meetings also memorialized the war experiences of veterans. Of course, any gathering of veterans was an occasion to swap stories, but the GAR meetings formally encouraged members to remember the war. During post meetings members would give recollections that they had prepared beforehand, giving special emphasis to the actions and movements of their units. Those recollections were recorded and preserved, because the GAR wanted to participate in the history of the Civil War by providing historians with primary sources. The national encampment was also an occasion for sentimental remembrances of camp life. The encampments featured camp food, tents and cots, discipline, marital music, and the absence of wives and children. Individual posts also invited neighboring posts to hold ‘‘campfires,’’ where camp life was reenacted. (See also Reunions, Civil War Veterans.) In the 1890s, the GAR joined in the nationwide patriotic fervor, at a time when the nation became increasingly enamored of its flag and other patriotic symbols. The GAR supported flag exercises and the singing of the national anthem in schools, and they encouraged posting the Declaration of Independence in classrooms. For example, the GAR is mentioned in the song ‘‘You’re a Grand Old Flag,’’ written in 1906. The GAR also started to censor textbooks, after some members became upset at books that glossed over the Civil War or that

| 201

were ambiguous about which sides were right and wrong.

The End of the GAR Because membership in the GAR was limited only to veterans of the Civil War, and not to their descendents or to veterans of later wars, it was inevitable that the GAR would fade away. Though earlier veterans’ groups, such as the Society of the Cincinnati, had chosen to perpetuate themselves by passing membership on to sons, the GAR chose to allow itself to decline and eventually vanish. That choice was made deliberately, because the GAR decided to avoid merging with one of its auxiliaries, the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. As membership declined, the GAR had to deal with diminished funding as well, and it had to arrange for posts to merge with one another. The GAR also faced the challenge of how to care for infirm members. The GAR lasted for a surprisingly long time. Its final encampment was held in 1949, with six veterans. Its last member, Albert H. Woolson, died in 1956. With its membership rolls closed, the GAR’s papers went to the Library of Congress, and its artifacts went to the Smithsonian Institution and other museums. Lincoln Austin Mullen See also Civil War Veterans; Confederate Veterans Associations

Further Reading Dearing, Mary R. Veterans in Politics: The Story of the G.A.R. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1952. Reprint, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974.

202 |

Gulf War Syndrome

Logue, Larry M., and Michael Barton, eds. The Civil War Veteran: A Historical Reader. New York: New York University Press, 2007. McConnell, Stuart C. Glorious Contentment: The Grand Army of the Republic, 1865– 1900. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

GULF WAR SYNDROME Following the Gulf War, August 2, 1990, to February 26, 1991, veterans who served began reporting a variety of symptoms including chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, headaches, dizziness, memory problems, shortness of breath, and birth defects in their children. On November 17, 2008, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses concluded that ‘‘scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans.’’ It believes about one out of four of nearly 700,000 veterans who served in the war were exposed to toxic chemicals that increased their likeliness of acquiring these symptoms (Silverleib 2008; see also entry, Gulf War Veterans). The Gulf War began when, on August 2, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ordered his military forces then massed along Iraq’s southern border to invade the tiny neighboring country of Kuwait. Iraq had long considered Kuwait a province of Iraq and did not recognize its independence. This fact, coupled with Hussein’s belief that Kuwait was illegally obtaining Iraqi oil through slant drilling, provided the pretext for the massive invasion. The heavily outnumbered Kuwaiti forces fought for two days but by August 4 they had been subdued by the numerically superior and more

heavily armed Iraqi military. World leaders within both the United Nations (UN) and the Arab League reacted quickly in the days immediately following the invasion of Kuwait as each organization condemned the invasion and called for Iraq’s withdrawal. U.S. President George H. W. Bush reacted by quickly deploying the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to Saudi Arabia to prevent further Iraqi aggression in the region and to protect the extremely valuable Saudi Hama oil fields. Bush continued this buildup of American military power in the region in Operation Desert Shield, while at the same time he built a massive coalition of 34 nations to oppose Saddam Hussein. As the month of August gave way to fall, UN negotiations with Iraq continued even as coalition forces poured into Saudi Arabia and massed along the Saudi Kuwait border. The UN issued a series of resolutions designed to persuade Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, including a series of economic sanction that were designed to isolate Iraq from the rest of the world. Perhaps the most important of these resolutions was UN Resolution 678 which set a January 15, 1991, deadline for an Iraqi withdrawal. A failure of Saddam Hussein to vacate Kuwait by that date authorized direct military action by coalition forces. This date came and went without any withdrawal by Iraqi forces, so on January 17 a massive coalition air campaign spearheaded by the United States began. The ground phase of Operation Desert Storm began on February 24, and barely 100 hours later, President Bush called a cease fire and declared Kuwait free. Although coalition forces proved vastly superior in quality, training, morale, and equipment, and easily bested Hussein’s forces, many of the 697,000

Gulf War Syndrome | 203 U.S. service personnel who served in the region would begin to report a mysterious set of ailments in the months and years after the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War. The American public greeted its victorious service members with ticker tape parades and jubilant celebrations of one of the most impressive victories in military history. However, in the 6–24 months immediately following the war, for over 100,000 returning American soldiers (approximately 15 percent of those deployed to the Persian Gulf) this joy quickly turned to consternation and concern as they developed a puzzling set of medical conditions. Although symptoms varied by individual, the ones most commonly reported were fatigue, fevers, myalgia, night sweats, rashes, abdominal bloating, intermittent diarrhea, photophobia, confusion, headaches, transient visual scotoma, muscle pains, nervousness, anxiety problems, respiratory problems, frequent coughing, chemical sensitivity, bleeding gums, eye pain, nausea, chest and ear pain, vision problems, irritability, and depression. In response to the growing number of medical complaints by veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs created a Registry Health Examination Program. This program allowed concerned veterans to obtain systematic medical examinations at VA medical facilities and allowed the VA to track any significant trends among the target population. However, the VA would from the outset take a rather skeptical view of the Gulf War Illness (GWI; also and later more frequently labeled Gulf War Syndrome). In one report, the VA concluded, ‘‘Although the syndromes associated with past armed conflicts are characterized by similar symptoms as seen in Gulf

War veteran registry participants, no single recurring illness has been found to explain their occurrence’’ (Howe 1999). In short, the official line held that the symptoms reported by Gulf War veterans were consistent with symptoms reported by veterans of other conflicts. In addition, by denying the existence of one single cause, the VA insinuated that many of the reported conditions could be explained by post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite the attempts by the VA to deny the existence of GWI, the number of soldiers complaining of often chronic and debilitating conditions increased and the medical community began to take notice. However, officials within the Department of Defense (DOD) and the VA continued to take a very skeptical view of veterans’ claims. By 1996 four government panels and advisory commissions had been appointed to study claims that Gulf War Illness was a syndrome and that veterans from the Gulf War suffered ailments out of proportion to those people who had not served in the Gulf. In an August 1995 report which studied 10,020 Gulf War veterans, the DOD concluded that ‘‘there is no clinical evidence for a new or unique illness or syndrome among Persian Gulf veterans’’ (PBS.org). Up until 1996, the DOD also categorically denied that U.S. troops had been exposed to chemical agents. In June of 1996, the DOD finally admitted that U.S. troops may have been exposed to chemical agents when army engineers mistakenly blew up an Iraqi munitions bunker containing chemical rounds. The DOD’s official stance on the existence of GWI and its reluctance to admit that U.S. troops were exposed to chemical and/or biological agents came under increasing attack from veterans, health officials, politicians, and other

204 |

Gulf War Syndrome

government agencies. About the same time that the DOD admitted soldiers may have been exposed to chemical agents, the Institute of Medicine, a notfor-profit research group affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that the Defense Department did not adequately explain its conclusion that the illnesses did not constitute a diagnosable syndrome. The continuing debate and pressure by politicians and veterans’ groups prompted President Bill Clinton to appoint the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illness in 1996. In March 1995 leading medical researches on GWI convened the Persian Gulf War Unity Conference in Texas in order to asses the current state of research into the phenomena and to offer possible causes of the syndrome. Garth L. Nicolson, Ph.D., issued a report summarizing the findings of the conference. The report concluded that the large number of conditions associated with GWI did not fit easily with any one disease. The report then went one to offer a series of possible causes for many of the leading symptoms of the illness. One leading hypothesis held that exposure to a variety of natural and man-made toxins and microorganisms caused a condition called multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) that could lead to many of the symptoms reported by Gulf War veterans. Culprits included depleted uranium dust from U.S. anti-tank rounds, chemical pesticides, oil fire residue, low levels of chemical agents such as nerve and mustard agents, and chemical anti-nerve agent compounds (Nicolson 1995). The report also cited environmental factors that may have contributed to sickness among the soldiers. One researcher noted that exposure to fine sand particles

in the Gulf ‘‘could have resulted in immunosuppression in some soldiers and eventual infection by opportunistic micro-organisms’’ (Nicolson 1995, 366). Significantly, the report also stated that ‘‘contamination in the environment appears to be responsible for MCS seen in many Gulf War veterans,’’ and speculated that highly toxic uranium dust was also a factor. It also found that many soldiers complaining of GWI symptoms tested positive for specific antibodies linked to exposure to radiation and chemical and biological agents (Nicolson 1995, 367). The toxic cocktail theory advocated by the Texas conference in 1995 continues to be one of the more widely held theories of prominent researchers to this day. Although the report advanced several possible causes of GWI -type symptoms, it also offered a scathing critique of the federal government’s actions to that date. Dr. Nicolson stated in his report that ‘‘the most pressing difficulty for most of the investigators working on Gulf War Illness has been the appalling lack of support for their studies and the failure of the Veterans Administration (VA) to cooperate with diagnostic and therapeutic clinical trials.’’ This type of dissension between the official policy of the DOD and the VA and the opinions and needs of leading researchers and veterans’ advocacy groups would continue to characterize the issue of GWI until the present day. Dr. Nicolson also pointed to another possible cause for some of the symptoms of GWI in an article which he published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1995. In this article, Nicolson noted that in some cases, family members of veterans of the Gulf War also reported similar symptoms as the

Gulf War Syndrome | 205 deployed family member after the family member returned. This lead to the conclusion that in some cases GWI was a transmittable infection. Nicolson theorized that some veterans ‘‘may have been infected with a micro-organism, possibly an aggressive pathogenic mycoplasma, and that this type of infection can produce chronic symptoms long after exposure’’ (Nicolson and Nicolson 1995). Dedicated researchers such as Nicolson and others continued to examine the causation of the bewildering number of reported maladies despite the official stance of the DOD and the VA. In 1999 researchers determined that the brain scans of many sick veterans showed signs of exposure to toxic chemicals. This seemed to be a significant corroboration of earlier theories and research that pointed to the conclusion that exposure to a multitude of environmental and man-made toxins and pathogens was responsible for GWI. Additional studies in 1999 linked the issuance of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) (a prophylactic antinerve agent compound) to a host of GWI-related conditions. Further research in 2004 revealed that some sick veterans were especially sensitive to low levels of chemical agents (levels thought to be safe for most) and this sensitivity was responsible for symptoms associated with GWI. Evidence amongst the medical and research community was clearly mounting for the earlier proposed toxic cocktail exposure theory (Golomb; Institute for Molecular Medicine). Despite the official policy of denial and skepticism, independent researchers continue to investigate GWI and find correlations between exposure to chemical compounds and environmental pathogens and the syndrome. Most recently, the Washington Times reported that

researchers had found a linkage between exposure to certain chemicals and the onset of symptoms of GWI, a theory long held by many veterans of the conflict. The article reported that a link had been firmly established between exposure to acetycholinestrase inhibitors (AChEIs) which was found in chemical pesticides issued to troops and nerve agents and nerve agent antidotes that many troops consumed during the conflict (Gardner 2008). Currently there is no official recognition of the existence of a GWI as a unique medical condition. Although the VA and DOD continue to track ailing veterans, they still contend that illnesses reported by Persian Gulf veterans are similar to ailments reported by veterans of other conflicts. Despite this stance, researchers continue to look for answers. In addition to earlier theories and research that has linked exposure to chemicals such as PB, pesticides, nerve agents, depleted uranium, pathogenic bacterium and mycoplasma, fine sand particles, and oil fire residues to the onset of GWI-related symptoms, additional sources are being investigated. One theory now holds that a series of anthrax vaccinations given to deployed soldiers to protect them from weaponized anthrax used as a biological weapon also caused immunosuppression in a certain population of soldiers. As of 2002 the Pentagon announced that tests it had conducted on the anthrax vaccine indicated it was negative for the presence of squalene and a vaccine adjunct not approved for use by the FDA and a target of many GWI researches. The Pentagon results were later invalidated by a more sensitive FDA test that confirmed squalene was present in some batches of the anthrax vaccine given to troops who

206 |

Gulf War Veterans

deployed to the Gulf from 1991 up to the War in Iraq that began in 2003. The discovery of squalene would help corroborate claims of GWI-type illnesses by veterans who deployed to the Persian Gulf in the years after the cessation of the Persian Gulf War. Since anthrax shots were routinely given to all troops deployed to the region after 1990, tainted anthrax vaccines may be a common causal agent that links veterans of different deployments. Despite the breakthroughs on anthrax vaccines and the confirmation of chemical sensitivity among some soldiers affected by GWI, researchers have not found one single cause of GWI nor have they convinced government officials to acknowledge GWI as a unique medical condition. Although most leading researchers now tend to favor exposure to a host of environmental pollutants, chemical agents, tainted anthrax vaccines, and organic pathogens as the most likely causes; research continues and will most likely continue into the foreseeable future as veterans continue to report the array of symptoms associated with the malady. Debate and controversy, hallmarks of the discussion of GWI since the first reports by veterans in the early 1990s, will likely continue to characterize this issue as research and study continues into the mysterious illness. James S. Bailey

Gardner, Amanda. ‘‘Gulf War Illness Strongly Linked to Chemical Exposure.’’ Washington Post, March 10, 2008. www.WashingtonPost.com. Golomb, Beatrice A. ‘‘A Review of the Scientific Literature as It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses: Pyridostigmine Bromide.’’ www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/ MR1018.2/. Howe, Michael. ‘‘Lessons Learned from the Department of Veterans Affairs.’’ Military Medicine, 164 (1999):327–31. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. www1.va.gov/gulfwar/page.cfm?pg=6. Institute for Molecular Medicine. ‘‘Gulf War Illnesses Research.’’ www.immed.org/ illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html. Nicolson, Garth L. ‘‘Progress on Persian Gulf Illness—Reality and Hypothesis.’’ International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 4 (1995): 365–70. Nicolson Garth L., and Nancy L. Nicolson. ‘‘Doxycycline Treatment and Desert Storm.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association 273 (1995): 619. PBS.org. ‘‘Gulf War Syndrome.’’ www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/ appendix/syndrome.html. ‘‘Progress on Persian Gulf Illness—Reality and Hypothesis.’’ International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 4 (1995): 365–67. Silverleib, Alan. ‘‘Gulf War Illness Is Real, New Federal Report Says,’’ November 17, 2008. www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/ 17/gulf.war.illness.study/.

Further Reading

GULF WAR VETERANS The Ghosts of Vietnam

Asa, Pamela B., Russell B. Wilson, and Robert F. Garry. ‘‘Antibodies to Squalene in Recipients of Anthrax Vaccine.’’ Experimental and Molecular Pathology 73 (2002): 19–27.

The First Gulf War, from August 2, 1990, to February 26, 1991, was a moment in history that vindicated the American military. In the wild victory celebrations that followed, the country reveled in the

Gulf War Veterans | 207 mission it had accomplished in the Persian Gulf. At the same time, the war also healed many of the scars left over from a much older conflict fought in Southeast Asia a generation earlier. Often lost to present-day audiences are the profound doubts that preceded the coalition invasion of Kuwait in 1991. In the months prior to the war, intelligence estimates held that the Iraqi military had as many as 450,000 troops in the theater of operations, backed by 4,000 tanks, 1,000 combat aircraft, 7,000 antiaircraft weapons, and 10,000 antiaircraft missiles (Millett and Maslowski 1994, 635–39). Many units, particularly Hussein’s elite Republican Guard divisions, were veterans of the recently ended Iran-Iraq war. Civilian and military analysts predicted that American forces engaging this enemy within a heavily fortified stretch of Kuwaiti desert might suffer casualties measured in the tens of thousands (Millett and Maslowski 1994, 635–39). In order to win public support for such a daunting task, George H. W. Bush embarked upon a campaign to directly include the American people in the mobilization for war. After a clumsy start in the early fall of 1990, the administration found its voice by November. Bush relied upon a simple methodology that framed American participation in a war against Saddam Hussein in terms of moral absolutes. During a series of public appeals to the American people comparing the Iraqi leader to Adolph Hitler, the president borrowed another page from history and depicted Iraqi forces that had invaded a small nation ‘‘with little warning and even less mercy.’’ The aggressive action led Bush to the equally simple conclusion that ‘‘the world must not reward aggression’’

(Bush 1990). Kuwait became the equivalent of Poland in 1939. The ‘‘line in the sand’’ drawn by the United States in August 1990 became, for all intents, an opportunity to prevent a second Munich Pact. Punctuating the administration’s discourse was a formal authorization for the war itself. At the end of the year, before the liberation of Kuwait commenced, the White House submitted to both houses of Congress a war resolution that allowed one additional venue for debate and the official stamp of legitimacy. By a narrow margin, particularly in the Senate, the national legislature accepted the president’s proposal. The course for war was set. The effort was more than a formal laying of hands by the nation’s leadership. The war resolution lent a sense of legitimacy to American operations that resonated with the people. On January 16, 1991, the day after the coalition bombing offensive began, an ABC poll indicated that 83 percent of Americans supported the war. For a brief moment in its post-Vietnam history, the United States experienced a public consensus over a foreign war. Once military operations against Iraq were concluded, the disparity between the scale of the victory and its cost further reinforced the public faith placed in Operation Desert Storm. Army and Marine ground forces suffered 122 combat deaths and 131 noncombat fatalities during the entirety of the 1991 campaign against Iraq, a remarkably small cost given the massive scale of the forces engaged. Estimates of Iraqi casualties were 10,000 military and 2,000 civilian (Millett and Maslowski 1994, 639). Within the American military community, the lopsided nature of the war was a

This view, taken from Arlington National Cemetery, shows troops marching across the Memorial Bridge in Washington, DC, heading towards the Pentagon during the National Victory Day Parade on June 8, 1991. The celebration to honor Gulf War troops drew an estimated 800,000 spectators. The Lincoln Memorial is in the background. [AP Photo/Greg Gibson]

Gulf War Veterans | 209 clear endorsement for the generation of officers and men who had labored for years under the stigma of Vietnam. Stymied by Communist forces in the field and reviled at home for years, these individuals had kept the faith, both in themselves and the military as an institution. Historian Rick Atkinson used Desert Storm VII Corp Commander Fred Franks to illustrate the point: ‘‘In many ways, Franks personified the American Army. Maimed in Southeast Asia, made whole again through force of will during a painful recuperation, he also endured the dark days after Vietnam, when racial strife, drugs, and indiscipline nearly destroyed the Army’’ (Atkinson 1993, 254). Men like Franks, Colin Powell, and Anthony Zinni had endured the hard years, retrained their forces and retooled them. The American triumph over the Iraqi army in the Kuwaiti desert was hard proof of their success. With victory in the Persian Gulf War clearly in hand, it appeared the so-called ‘‘Vietnam syndrome’’ had finally been put to rest (Summers 1994). The ultimate victory over the Vietnam syndrome was not the military’s alone. The foundation of public support for Desert Storm was a deliberate effort to recognize the failures of Vietnam and rectify them. First and foremost, as Harry Summers and many other scholars have noted, was a strategy built around the precept of inclusion. In making a public case for war and subjecting the final decision to fight to a congressional debate televised on C-SPAN, the Bush administration reversed the mistakes of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the subsequent slow escalation that had defined the Vietnam quagmire. After the Gulf War, many Americans had high hopes for the future,

particularly for world affairs. In 1991, George H. W. Bush went so far as to claim that ‘‘as the Cold War drew to an end we saw the possibilities of a new order in which nations worked together to promote peace and prosperity’’ (Bush 1991). It seemed at the time that a new Pax Americana, similar to that which followed World War II, was about to dawn. Some of the first to challenge this sense of accomplishment were veterans of Desert Storm themselves. Many of the individuals who fought in the Persian Gulf began to express latent doubts about the war in its aftermath, not so much regarding basic objectives, but the actual nature of combat between American and Iraqi forces. Anthony Swofford’s book Jarhead captured this sense of anticlimax perfectly: ‘‘The months of training and deployment, the loneliness, the boredom, the fatigue, the rounds fired at fake, static targets, the nights of firewatch, and finally the letdown, the easy victory that just scraped the surface of a war—all of these are frustrations and nearly unendurable facets of our war, our conflict. Did we fight? Was that combat?’’ (Swofford 2003, 239). Veterans of the so-called ‘‘hundredhour war’’ asked whether or not their fight compared to those of their fathers and grandfathers. While World War II analogies may have successfully focused public opinion in the build up to Desert Storm, they failed for Persian Gulf veterans. The slaughter on the Basra Road compared poorly with the Battle of Midway. Even direct clashes between the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and the Republican Guard Tawalkana Division at 73 Easting lacked the epic quality of Iwo Jima or Normandy. Veterans questioned whether or not the American victory was in proportion

210 |

Gulf War Veterans

to the sacrifice. An armor officer, Alex Vernon wrote in 2001, ‘‘When I returned home from the Persian Gulf War 10 years ago, I sometimes found myself thinking —and less frequently found myself admitting to fellow veterans—that I wished the war had been bloodier. Not for Iraq. God no. For America’’ (Vernon 2001, 68). Men like Vernon asked not about the lessons learned, but those that were not. For these individuals, the halflife of postwar celebration was very short, particularly considering the many paradoxes that had emerged even before the conflict was over. How could the United States claim Saddam Hussein was the moral equivalent of Hitler, but not march on Baghdad and finish his regime? How could American policymakers embrace democracy and the spirit of self-determination, while turning their backs on the rebellions in northern and southern Iraq that immediately followed Hussein’s defeat? Declaring an end to the specter of Vietnam became a useful catchphrase in the early nineties, but was highly problematic in actual practice. American leaders embraced the concept of decisive military action, but their faith in this principle subsequently justified deployments that became modern-day quagmires in their own right. After 1991, American forces intervened in such formerly unlikely locations as Kurdistan, Somalia, and the Balkans. Similarly, the First Gulf War established the myth of war at little or no cost and defined, fairly or not, the fundamental terms of military action until 9/11 (Schemann 1999). Today, hindsight and bitter experience highlight the wisdom of Vernon’s claim about the First Gulf War. At home, the postwar domestic debate over the purpose of the ‘‘peace dividend’’

became a test of the renewed public commitment to the military. With the conclusion of the Cold War and victory over Iraq, the discourse focused on future American priorities, between social welfare at home and national security abroad. Many contemporary analysts were optimistic that the military as an institution would be able to hold its own in the ‘‘guns verses butter’’ debate and keep the high polling numbers evident at the conclusion of the war. Media experts noted that the Persian Gulf War had witnessed the dissolution of the barrier between soldier and television viewer. Without making a distinction between media access and actual engagement, they speculated that the people had internalized their support for the military to a degree unprecedented in American history (Vernon 2001, 73–74). The assumption proved popular not only in academic circles, but also among George H. W. Bush’s campaign staff during the 1992 election. What this school of thought failed to understand was the disparity between popular support for military issues and vicarious participation in a war. As far removed as veterans like Swofford and Vernon were from actual combat, they had internalized its meaning to a degree that defied reproduction as a twodimensional television image. For people at home, embracing the symbols of Desert Storm—yellow ribbons, the American flag—reflected a superficial sense of the war. Cognizance of the sacrifice and participation that even combat veterans lacked clearly was another matter entirely. Public support was, in this context, a very thin patina easily removed by more immediate priorities such as employment and inflation. This was a reality that dawned during congressional proposals to begin

Gulf War Veterans | 211 base closures around the country and gut the defense budget. It was a basic concept that Clinton political advisor James Carville grasped when he articulated his candidate’s core idea in one sentence: ‘‘It’s the economy, stupid.’’ Ironically, the conventional wisdom at the outset of the nineties centered on the desire to make right decisions based upon an understanding of past mistakes. Historians have noted that the election of William Jefferson Clinton in 1992 represented a clear break with the status quo and a desire to introduce new ideas and new approaches into the American mainstream. The extent of this change would soon be tested by the treatment of veterans of the Gulf War who began to demonstrate disturbing symptoms of a disease that shared the same name as the region.

Gulf War Syndrome Not long after the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, returning troops began to report physical and mental illnesses that defied easy categorization. A few things were clear, however. Most of the reported ailments had not been present prior to American deployments to the Middle East in 1990. Service members in comparatively good health prior to the war now indicated symptoms such as joint pain, memory loss, chronic fatigue, loss of cognitive ability, and depression (Thomas et al. 2006; Wessely 2004). More importantly, as time passed, the overall numbers of individuals affected grew to the thousands and, later, the tens of thousands. British and Canadian troops home from Kuwait also reported a disturbingly similar spectrum of physical and mental problems (Deahl 2005).

Within a few short years, ‘‘Gulf War Syndrome’’ joined the American lexicon. By 1995, more than 29,000 veterans had officially reported their symptoms to the Veterans Administration as part of the Persian Gulf War Registry. At the same time, the Defense Department kept a separate list of 9,000 service members that was growing at a rate of 1,000 each month. Even more disturbing were reports from a study sponsored by former senator Don Riegle that the spouses and children of Gulf War veterans were also becoming ill with the same symptoms (Bernstein and Kelley 1995). The scope and the scale of illnesses affecting returning Persian Gulf War veterans eventually became one of the most prolonged and divisive debates in America during the nineties. On one side were veterans, their families, legislators, and portions of the medical community who first fought to have the syndrome officially recognized and later advocated treatment. On the other were the Defense Department and the various agencies of the federal government responsible for the health and welfare of the veterans and the active duty military (Helmer et al. 2007). The federal government’s stance on Gulf War Syndrome became apparent very early. In testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Committee in March 1995, Dr. Stephen Joseph, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, testified on the subject of chemical and biological weapons as a potential cause of sickness, stating that, ‘‘There is no persuasive evidence of such exposure, even after much scrutiny’’ (Waldman 1996). Joseph’s flat denial of a problem essentially articulated the official federal position for years despite a growing body of evidence to the contrary.

212 |

Gulf War Veterans

Perhaps more pointedly, when the public debate took this turn, it very quickly resurrected the Vietnam-era controversy over compensation for service members suffering from illnesses caused by Agent Orange. Just as a previous generation of veterans had suffered from years of official denial and neglect, another appeared poised to step into the same role with nothing learned from the experience (Zavestoski et al. 2002). One journalist saw Pentagon stonewalling as a tragic avoidance of reality when she wrote in 1996 that ‘‘knowing how isn’t the same as knowing if ’’ (Waldman 1996). As much as the war in the Persian Gulf had healed many of the wounds left over from Vietnam, the debate over Gulf War Syndrome clearly reopened them. Gulf War Syndrome also reopened another piece of the conventional wisdom left over from Vietnam and other wars: that of the mentally disturbed veteran who could no longer fit into mainstream American society. Reports of mental impairment linked to wartime service started a national discussion not only about the health of these veterans, but their basic character. Many skeptics saw claims of postwar illness as a sign of malingering, as evidence of individuals attempting to defraud the military and the federal government. On the other end of the spectrum were mental health experts who believed that exposure to combat had created a cohort of emotionally disturbed veterans who posed a clear danger to society. This latter theory became a media sensation during the manhunt for the Washington, DC, area sniper John A. Muhammad (Cook 2004). Although subsequent research eventually attributed Gulf War Syndrome to a series of physical illnesses

unrelated to emotional stress or a psychiatric condition, the image of the dangerous, mentally disturbed veteran would linger. It would take years before a systematic medical explanation of Gulf War Syndrome finally became available. Studies by Robert Haley, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas and Keiji Fukuda at the Centers for Disease Control eventually identified a ‘‘chronic multisystem condition’’ associated with deployment to the Gulf (MacKensie 2004). Bolstering scientific research were national advocacy groups, particularly the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who became the standard bearers for federal action, testifying before Congress as well as the National Institutes of Health throughout the decade (Mason 1999). As this discussion unfolded, the approximate causes of Gulf War Syndrome became increasingly clear. One apparent source of illness was Iraqi chemical and biological weapons. In the buildup to the war in 1990, American intelligence sources identified significant stockpiles of nerve and blister agents in the Iraqi inventory. Whether or not these weapons were actually used is still the subject of debate. The U.S. Department of Defense reported during a 1994 Senate investigation that the 14,000 chemical weapons alarms in use during the war went off an average of 2–3 times each day. At the time, American military authorities dismissed these as false alarms, claiming that they were triggered by sand or the jet exhaust of nearby aircraft (Bernstein and Kelley 1995). However, the military’s own awards system provided evidence of chemical weapons use for journalists soon after the war. A Meritorious Service Medal awarded

Gulf War Veterans | 213 to Army Captain Michael Johnson that was discovered by The Progressive noted ‘‘positive identification of a suspected chemical agent’’ in the official citation (Bernstein and Kelley 1995). A final and compelling piece of evidence was the destruction of an Iraqi weapons dump at Khamisiyah in March 1991. Later reports indicated that when American engineers destroyed the facility, they might have released chemical agents such as Sarin nerve gas near coalition units stationed in the area (MacKensie 2004; The Economist 1997). American efforts to protect the health of its military were also linked to Gulf War Syndrome. In the months leading up to Operation Desert Storm, U.S. military officials scrambled to prepare deploying troops for the threat of nerve and biological agents. In the rush to avoid casualties, drugs were haphazardly administered to the troops without proper testing or protocols. One in particular was pyridostigmine bromide (PB), a prophylactic designed to partially block the effects of nerve agents before exposure. The military compounded the problem by not properly screening specific inoculations and allowing untested combinations of them to be administered to American soldiers. Some individual units deploying to Saudi Arabia received as many as 17 different vaccines. Chronically poor record keeping of individual inoculations later seriously inhibited medical investigations that followed the war (Waldman 1996, 31). The other potential sources of Gulf War Syndrome are rooted in the stew of chemicals and materials utilized during the war. The United States and British military, for example, extensively sprayed pesticides in troop living areas to reduce the threat of insect-borne

diseases such as leishmaniasis, which caused serious tissue damage and infection (The Economist 1997). Depleted uranium ammunition was fielded under combat conditions for the first time in 1991. While these rounds were safe under controlled conditions on stateside target ranges, the same was not true once the Kuwaiti desert was littered with the ruin hulks of Iraqi armored vehicles. The end of the war also posed its own unique problems. Prior to their redeployment home, American units cleaned and prepared their equipment with industrial-strength solvents without proper protective equipment (MacFarlane et al. 2005; The Ecologist 2003). Together, the combination of insecticides, radioactive materials, and other agents created an extremely hazardous environment. Yet, despite the accumulation of potential causes of Gulf War Syndrome, the federal government refused to act. A type of bureaucratic trickle down effect began as the Pentagon and other agencies dismissed outright both the evidence and its advocates. The Veterans Administration proved no better than the Defense Department. Tentative first steps to resolve the problem of Gulf War Syndrome finally appeared a half decade after the war. In 1996, the White House commissioned the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. Official obstacles to outside inquiries subsequently diminished and were replaced by a deluge of new information. Under the supervision of the Defense Department, subagencies within the Pentagon were tasked with investigating the potential causes of wartime illness. The advisory board opened military intelligence archives in search of evidence of Iraqi

214 |

Gulf War Veterans

chemical and biological weapons. The task proved so large that it was contracted to the MITRE Corporation, which eventually came into the possession of over 55 million documents. Other private companies soon joined the effort and received contracts to determine more specific elements of the story. The Institute for Defense Analysis was responsible for ascertaining the wind currents that might have affected the demolition of the Khamisiyah weapons site (Greenberg, March 1997). Eventually, so much data reached the study that it was extended to 1997 to render a complete report (Executive Order 1997). The final advisory committee report offered a mixed message to Gulf War veterans. The committee found that the Department of Defense’s investigations of exposure to be ‘‘superficial and unlikely to provide credible answers to veterans’ and the public’s questions’’ (Executive Summary 1996). The report also highlighted the absence of complete medical records, baseline health data, and an accurate accounting of troop dispositions during the war. Conversely, the committee determined that ‘‘current scientific evidence does not support a causal link between the symptoms and illnesses reported today by Gulf War veterans and exposures while in the Gulf region to the following environmental risk factors assessed by the Committee: pesticides, chemical warfare agents, biological warfare agents, vaccines, pyridostigmine bromide, infectious diseases, depleted uranium, oil-well fires and smoke, and petroleum products’’ (Executive Summary 1996). Overall, the advisory committee believed that, although the federal government had been ‘‘somewhat slow’’ to address veterans’ problems after the war, it had acted in good

faith (Executive Summary 1996). One key finding concluded that posttraumatic stress was a likely mechanism for many of the medical problems afflicting Gulf War veterans. The Presidential Advisory Board Committee charted a path between hard science and public skepticism. Recognizing the fact that incomplete records and the absence of hard data made final judgments on Gulf War Syndrome impossible, the committee rejected contemporary claims, but left the door open for future research. By attempting to strike a balance, the report ultimately pleased few in Congress, the veterans’ community, or critics in other federal agencies. In June 1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office offered its own report on Gulf War Syndrome, citing the fact that Iraqi chemical weapons were likely to blame for the maladies suffered by veterans. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (see entry) quickly concurred with the finding. Fred Juarbe, the VFW director of National Veterans Service commented, ‘‘We have always maintained stress is not the primary cause of Gulf War illness’’ (Dyhouse, August 1997). That same year, the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight unanimously criticized the Defense Department and Veterans Administration for their ‘‘irreparably flawed’’ efforts (Wadman 1997). In the longer term, however, the advisory committee report granted official recognition to Gulf War Syndrome and became a baseline for numerous federal reforms afterward (Greenberg, September 1997). By 1996, approximately 62,000 individuals had had physical examinations as part of the VA Persian Gulf Health Registry (The Economist 1997).

Gulf War Veterans | 215 Administrative support for veterans increased significantly once the report became official. The Defense Department expanded its Gulf War illness investigation team from 12 to 110 in 1997 (High 1997). The Pentagon also began a mass mailing campaign in 1997 and 2000 to encourage veterans to seek medical help. In 2006, it sent notice regarding the increased risk of brain cancer to troops stationed near Khamisiyah for their exposure to chemical agents (Dyhouse, May 2006). Subsequently, by 2006, the Veterans Administration had granted the claims of some 30 percent of Gulf War veterans, a total of 205,911 men and women. These individuals received disability ratings between zero and one hundred percent (Dyhouse, December 2006; Ozakinci et al. 2006). On November 17, 2008, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses concluded that ‘‘scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans.’’ It believes about one out of four of nearly 700,000 veterans who served in the war were exposed to toxic chemicals that increased their likeliness of acquiring these symptoms (Silverleib 2008). It is ironic that as much as the Persian Gulf War put to rest the ghosts of Vietnam, the prolonged battle over Gulf War Syndrome resurrected them again. A generation of soldiers put their faith in institutions that failed them and only belatedly, after years of debate and enormous public pressure, were convinced to address the problem with the same sense of duty Gulf War veterans had already earned. In that respect, veterans of Desert Storm shared the same legacy as their fathers before them in Vietnam. (See also separate entry, Gulf War Syndrome.)

Women Veterans of the Gulf War The participation of women in Desert Shield and Desert Storm set a precedent for the American military and fundamentally changed its future direction. The defense of Saudi Arabia and the invasion of Kuwait witnessed the largest deployment of women for war in U.S. history. When the conflict began in 1991, approximately 8 percent of American forces engaged were female (Alvarez 2001). Conversely, the Persian Gulf War also saw the first official female ‘‘war resister’’ in Stephanie Atkinson (Kleinman 1991). Military women were justifiably proud of their wartime service. As veterans, they entered civilian society with a sense of accomplishment and selfconfidence that what they did was for the greater good of the country. The war also offered tangible proof that, under adverse combat conditions, their work was on par with that of men. Women veterans suffered many of the same adjustment problems as their male counterparts once they returned to civilian life. They felt the same cultural disconnect with peers outside military. Many surveyed after the war reported boredom, restlessness, and a sense of isolation. One female veteran noted, ‘‘When you get out of the service, you’re in an entirely different type of life. You can’t talk about things . . . .I talk to my husband about it and it bores him’’ (Suter et al. 2006). However, in the years following Desert Storm, some distinctions separating women’s military service did emerge. This was particularly the case with respect to medical care. A 2003 study published in Military Medicine indicated

216 |

Gulf War Veterans

that women with Gulf War service received twice as many outpatient visits as men in the five years after the conflict. Women veterans also had more than three times as many inpatient hospital stays during the same time period. Other factors made women who served in Desert Storm distinct. The study revealed that women who served as part of the 1990– 1991 cohort had less education, lower incomes, and were more likely to rely on Medicaid than female service members in previous eras (Carney et al. 2003). Postwar medical surveys of women veterans also pointed out some unique mental and physical burdens. According to the 2003 study, 28 percent of women in the military reported some degree of sexual harassment (versus 1 percent of men) and 8 percent reportedly suffered sexual assault during their Desert Shield/Desert Storm deployment (Carney et al. 2003). In fact, the 1991 war simply highlighted what was a systemic problem throughout the American military (Contemporary Sexuality 2003). Although the actual number of women serving during Desert Storm was relatively small, approximately 30,000, it was their postwar legacy that truly left a stamp on the military and the larger issue of service. American victory in 1991 was interpreted by many in academe and the government as approval for a genderintegrated military (Kuzovchikova 2006). Consequently, a rapid increase of women in the service branches quickly became the norm after the war. The U.S. Air Force officially ended gender limits —or ‘‘ceilings’’—on recruiting in 1990. The U.S. Navy followed suit five years later (Armor 1996). By mid-decade, 15 percent of the U.S. Air Force was female along with 19 percent of the U.S. Army. The only portion of the military that did

not witness a significant rise in women was the Marine Corps (Armor 1996). By 2001, nearly 200,000 women made up 14.7 percent of active duty American military forces (Book 2001). As the number of women in uniform increased, it reignited a debate regarding their role in combat. Changes in federal law and Clinton administration policy allowed women to serve in all occupational specialties with the exception of those involving ‘‘direct ground combat’’ roles. These changes opened up service on combat surface ships, aircraft, and other areas previously denied women in the military (Armor 1996; O’Beirne 2003; Nantais and Lee 1999). Proponents of new policy argued from the standpoint of basic principle, making the point that prior restrictions on military service did not reflect the egalitarian nature of modern American society. Moreover, they believed that Pentagon policy segregating military roles by gender had the effect of devaluing the service performed by women. On the subject of practical participation in genderintegrated units, advocates stressed changes in training protocols to reduce potential conflict as well as the absolute need for high-tech skills in a twenty-firstcentury military that was essentially gender blind (Mackubin 1998; Newman 1997). As proof positive of their case, military reformers in the nineties returned repeatedly to Operation Desert Storm and the American victory over Iraq. Opponents of women in combat questioned the series of practical compromises being made for the principle of gender equity. They pointed out that gendernormed physical standards created a twotrack system within an institution that could not jettison the need for muscle even in the modern day. More importantly,

Gulf War Veterans | 217 this same double standard created a corrosive effect within the military that would ultimately affect both practical performance and the same egalitarianism emphasized by reform advocates. From this perspective, women’s ‘‘struggle’’ was less about rights than rewards and the need for combat assignments to embellish service records for the purpose of promotion (Simons 2001). The military as an institution coped as best it could amidst the highly charged and politicized debate. Journalist Richard Rayner captured the essence of its dilemma in 1997 when he wrote, ‘‘There is much more to the military’s problem than simply managing human behavior, finding some way to control or contain the sex drives of young men and women. The growing presence of women in the military is stirring far deeper currents: the pitting of an ancient and culturally embedded view of what it means to be a warrior against the irresistible force of democracy, in the sense of absolute equality. It’s a collision of two irreconcilable ideals, with issues of sex and military practicality sandwiched and sometimes brutalized between the two’’ (Rayner 1997). (See also Women Veterans, World War I to the Present.)

from it. Subsequent events abroad in the new post-Cold War environment of failed states and ethic cleansing soon justified this skepticism. The medical condition that became known as Gulf War Syndrome brought similar doubts closer to home. Bureaucratic inertia, the absence of complete information, and public distrust squandered much of the domestic goodwill created by the war. Veterans, once celebrated as heroes, became emblematic of the fragile American consensus on war, service, and federal policy. The precedents set by women serving in the Persian Gulf remain with the American military to this day. While one author lauded the possibility of a ‘‘more humane workplace and a more lethal fighting force’’ as recently as 2007, the Second Gulf or Iraq War remains the true acid test of women’s effectiveness. To date, a complete assessment of their capabilities—and limitations—has not been completed by a government or private agency (Young 2007).

Conclusion

Further Reading

American victory in the First Gulf War healed a great deal of the scar tissue left over from Vietnam. Operation Desert Storm possessed a decisiveness that restored faith in the military as an institution and honor to the vocation of soldier within American society. However, doubts about the war’s impact surfaced soon after its conclusion. Gulf War veterans were among the first to question the war’s conduct and the wisdom gained

Alvarez, Stephen. ‘‘Army Reserve Women Weather ‘The Storm’.’’ Army Reserve Magazine 47 (Summer 2001): 26. Armor, David J. ‘‘Race and Gender in the U.S. Military.’’ Armed Forces and Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1. Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1993. Bernstein, Dennis, and Thea Kelley. ‘‘The Gulf War Comes Home.’’ The Progressive 59 (March 1995): 30–36.

Michael D. Gambone See also Gulf War Syndrome; Afghan War Veterans

218 |

Gulf War Veterans

Book, Elizabeth G. ‘‘Military Women: 200,000 and Counting.’’ National Defense 86 (October 2001): 14–15. Bush, George H. W. ‘‘The Possibility of a New World Order: Unlocking the Promise of Freedom.’’ Vital Speeches 57 (May 1991): 450–52. Bush, George H. W. ‘‘Why We Are in the Gulf.’’ Newsweek, November 26, 1990, 28. Carney, Caroline P., Tomoko R. Sampson, Margaret Voelker, Robert Woolson, Peter Thorne, and Bradley Doebbeling. ‘‘Women in the Gulf War: Combat Experience, Exposures, and Subsequent Health Care Use.’’ Military Medicine 168 (August 2003): 658–60. Cloud, S. W. ‘‘Exorcising Old Demons.’’ Time March 11, 1991, 52–53. Contemporary Sexuality. ‘‘Rape in the Military’’ 37 (May 2003): 8–9. Cook, Margare. ‘‘The Myth of the Malingerer.’’ New Statesman 17 (November 29, 2004): 13–14. Deahl, Martin. ‘‘Smoke, Mirrors, and Gulf War Illness.’’ The Lancet 365 (February 19–25, 2005): 635–38. Dyhouse, Tim. ‘‘GAO Dismisses Stress as Cause of Gulf War Syndrome.’’ Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine 94 (August 1997): 15. Dyhouse, Tim. ‘‘One-Third of Gulf Vets Granted Claims.’’ Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine 94 (December 2006): 14. Dyhouse, Tim. ‘‘Pentagon Updates Gulf War Vets.’’ Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine 93 (May 2006): 12. The Ecologist. ‘‘Depleted Uranium Blamed for Iraq Cancer Explosion’’ 33 (April 2003): 7. The Economist. ‘‘Darkness at Noon’’ 342 (January 11, 1997): 71–74. ‘‘Executive Order 13034—Extension of Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses.’’ Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 33 (February 3, 1997): 123.

Executive Summary. Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses: Final Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, December 1996), 2. www.gulflink.osd.mil/gwvi/ exsumm-f.html. Greenberg, Daniel S. ‘‘Gulf War Panel Assails the Pentagon.’’ The Lancet 350 (September 13, 1997): 793. Greenberg Daniel S. ‘‘US Gulf-War Syndrome Studies Prove to Be a Growth Industry.’’ The Lancet 349 (March 29, 1997): 931. Helmer Drew A., Mindy E. Flanagan, Robert Woolson, and Bradley N. Doebbling. ‘‘Health Services Use Among Gulf War Veterans and Gulf War-Era Nondeployed Veterans: A Large Population-Based Survey.’’ American Journal of Public Health 97 (December 2007): 2145–48. High, Gil. ‘‘Illness Probe Widened.’’ Soldiers 52 (February 1997): 6–7. Kleinman, Carol, ‘‘Hell No, She Won’t Go.’’ Ms. 1 (January 1991): 90. Kuzovchikova, O. M. ‘‘Army Feminization: Its Essence, Evolution, and Basic Trends.’’ Military Thought 15 (2006): 167–77. MacFarlane, Gary, J. Matthew Hotopf, Noreen Maconochie, Nick Blatchley, Alison Richards, and Mark Lunt. ‘‘LongTerm Mortality Amongst Gulf War Veterans: Is There a Relationship with Experiences During Deployment and Subsequent Morbidity?’’ International Journal of Epidemiology 34 (2005): 1403–8. MacKensie, Debora. ‘‘The Disease That Never Was?’’ New Scientist 184 (November 6–12, 2004): 8–11. Mackubin, Thomas Owens. ‘‘It’s Time to Face the Gender Paradox.’’ United States Naval Institute Proceedings 124 (July 1998): 43–50. Mason, Herbert M. ‘‘Korea, Vietnam, and Beyond.’’ Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine 86 (August 1999): 20. Millett, Allan R., and Peter Maslowski. For the Common Defense: A Military History

Gulf War Veterans | 219 of the United States of America. New York: The Free Press, 1994. Nantais, Cynthia, and Martha Lee. ‘‘Women in the United States Military: Protectors or Protected?’’ Journal of Gender Studies 8 (July 1999): 181–91. Newman, Richard J. ‘‘Army Sex Ed 101.’’ U.S. News & World Report 123 (August 11, 1997): 50–52. O’Beirne, Kate, ‘‘A New Horror of War.’’ National Review 55 (April 21, 2003): 24–25. Ozakinci, Gozde, William K. Hallman, and Howard M. Kipen. ‘‘Persistence of Symptoms in Veterans of the First Gulf War: 5-Year Follow-Up.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (October 2006): 1553–57. Schemann Serge, ‘‘Not Taking Losses is One Thing: Winning is Another,’’ New York Times (3 January 1999): 4–1, 4–5. Silverleib, Alan. ‘‘Gulf War Illness Is Real, New Federal Report Says.’’ November 17, 2008. www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/ 17/gulf.war.illness.study/. Simons, Anna. ‘‘Women in Combat Units: It’s Still a Bad Idea.’’ Parameters 31 (Summer 2001): 89–100. Summers, Harry G. ‘‘The Vietnam Syndrome and the American People.’’ Journal of American Culture 17 (Spring 1994): 53–58. Suter, Elizabeth A., Emily N. Lamb, Meredith Marko, and Stacy Tye-Williams. ‘‘Female Veterans’ Identity Construction, Maintenance, and Reproduction.’’ Women and Language 29 (Spring 2006): 10–15.

Swofford, Anthony. Jarhead: A Marine’s Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles. New York: Scribner, 2003. Thomas, Hollie V., Nicola J. Stimpson, Alison L. Weightman, Frank Dunstan, and Glyn Lewis. ‘‘Systematic Review of Multi-Symptom Conditions in Gulf War Veterans.’’ Psychological Medicine 36 (2006): 735–47. USA Today ‘‘Violence Against Women in the Military’’ 130 (August 2001): 14–15. Vernon, Alex. ’’The Gulf War and Postmodern Memory.’’ The Wilson Quarterly 25 (Winter 2001): 68–82. Wadman, Meredith. ‘‘Critics Claim U.S. Inquiry was ‘Irreparably Flawed’.’’ Nature 390 (November 6, 1997): 4. Waldman, Amy. ‘‘Credibility Gulf: The Military’s Battle over Whether to Protect Its Image or Its Troops.’’ The Washington Monthly 28 (December 1996): 29. Wessely, Simon. ‘‘The Long Aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War.’’ Annals of Internal Medicine 141 (July 20, 2004): 155–56. Young, Holly. ‘‘Soldiering Ahead.’’ The Wilson Quarterly 31 (Summer 2007): 54–62. Zavestoski, Stephen, Phil Brown, Meadow Linder, Sabrina McCormick, and Brian Mayer. ‘‘Science, Policy, Activism, and War: Defining the Health of Gulf War Veterans.’’ Science, Technology, and Human Values 27 (Spring 2002): 171–205.

This page intentionally left blank

H continents, it is certainly not surprising that Hispanics have figured prominently in U.S. military history. From Spaniards to indigenous inhabitants and people of mixed white/black/Native American racial heritage such as mestizos, mulattoes, and zambos who have inevitably become Hispanicized, descendants of Spanish-speaking groups have donned military uniforms from the American Revolutionary War through the ongoing War on Terrorism. Indeed, as both the oldest and newest immigrants to the United States, Hispanics have long been willing to sacrifice their lives for their country.

HISPANIC AMERICAN VETERANS Hispanics are among those men and women who have distinguished themselves on and off the field of battle in service of the United States. Yet before chronicling the accolades of Hispanics in military uniform, it is important to develop a working understanding of how one qualifies as ‘‘Hispanic.’’ This is necessary because it partially explains how some Hispanics may have been unintentionally overlooked. The U.S. Department of Defense identifies Hispanic servicemen and women in several ways: how they viewed themselves; how they were perceived by others either fitting a given phenotype or not; and whether a person had a Spanish surname. Naturally, this barometer is not inclusive, but it outlines the basic standards. As pioneers of American culture as well as the largest minority group in the United States with a history that spans thousands of years and several

American Revolution During the War for Independence, the Spanish indirectly supported the Americans by allying with the French against the British. Deserving noteworthy mention as an early activist for the liberation of the 13 British colonies is Francisco de Miranda (1756–1816). A native of Venezuela, Miranda participated in the War 221

222 |

Hispanic American Veterans

for Independence and later attempted to liberate his own country, but he died in jail. Another meaningful contributor was the Spaniard Jorge Farragut. As one of the first Hispanic Revolutionary War heroes, Farragut fought the British at Savannah. Thereafter he joined the Continental Army, eventually rising to the rank of major. Interestingly, Farragut’s son, David Glasgow Farragut, became the first admiral of the U.S. Navy, leading Union forces in the 1862 Battle of New Orleans and contributing to closing the Confederacy’s last major Gulf port. Between 1865 and 1870, Farragut was twice promoted, becoming the U.S. Navy’s first four-star admiral.

Civil War The Civil War was the nation’s greatest political and moral crisis, which claimed more than 620,000 American lives, and divided not just Anglo families, but Hispanics as well. During this four-year era, some Hispanics served the cause of the Union, while others served in the Confederacy. In 1863, the U.S. government approved the creation of the first Hispanic battalion. In part this battalion was established in order to gain leverage for Union forces in the Southwest by using ethnic Mexican horsemanship. Nearly 500 ethnic Mexicans served in the battalion. A year later, Diego Archuleta became the first Hispanic brigadier general for the Union. Union leadership also formed militia companies which proliferated throughout the Southwest, especially in New Mexico. Establishing a long line of Hispanic Medal of Honor winners, Philip Bazaar, a Chilean national, was the first to be issued this prestigious recognition during the Civil War as a result of his attack on a fort

from a six-man boat. Equally important were Hispanic sons of the South and their respective contributions during the War for Southern Independence. Hispanics served in Confederate units in Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. In short order, Texan Santos Benavides became the highest-ranking Hispanic in the Confederate Army. Overall, as many as 12,000 Hispanics served in the Civil War.

World War I Motivated in part to challenge mainstream press that questioned their commitment and loyalty as the United States had fought the Spanish-American War against a ‘‘Hispanic’’ adversary, Hispanics during War World I again established themselves as valiant soldiers in all branches of military service. Thousands of Hispanics were drafted, while others volunteered in order to prove that they were loyal citizens. In March of 1917, just before the United States entered the war, Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship through the Jones Act courtesy of President Woodrow Wilson and Congress. This brand of citizenship did not allow island Puerto Ricans the opportunity to participate in federal politics or receive economic benefits of statehood. It did, however, pave the way for Puerto Ricans to become eligible for military service. Thus, 20,000 Puerto Ricans were drafted, serving honorably in World War I. Mexican Americans also served by the thousands with honor, as their record for voluntary enlistment was proportionately greater than that of any other group of people. As a consequence of the Zimmermann note, which proposed a military alliance between Germany and

Hispanic American Veterans Mexico against the United States, many Americans were suspicious of Hispanics, especially Mexican Americans. Some alleged that Mexican Americans were encouraged to engage in combat only to gather intelligence for the Germans so they could collect on the Zimmermann promise that Mexico would reclaim lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Regrettably, a number of innocent Mexican Americans were killed over this pretext, notably in Texas. Even with this senseless violence, Hispanics were unified behind their nation against the Central Powers, earning scores of medals for their heroism. The first Hispanic solider to be awarded with the Distinguished Service Cross was Private Marcelino Serna, who independently captured 24 German soldiers. Interestingly, Private Serna did not qualify for the Medal of Honor because he could not read or write English effectively enough to document reports. As with War World II, when Hispanics returned home after risking their lives to defend U.S. principles, they expected to be treated with the same kind of respect and dignity that any other U.S. citizen received, yet this was not the case. Hispanic veterans are almost completely ignored in the histories of World War I.

World War II World War II proved to be the campaign that brought larger society closer to appreciating the sacrifices of Hispanics. Hispanics enlisted in vast numbers as up to 750,000 million volunteered their services in various branches of the U.S. armed forces. Although most of these ‘‘Hispanics’’ were Mexican American, between 55,000 and 65,000 were Puerto Ricans. This level of participation

| 223

equaled about 5 percent of all troops. Hispanics, predominantly Mexican Americans, enlisted in inordinate numbers despite the fact that during the Great Depression they were liable to be deported as they took jobs away from citizens. This possibility decreased during the war, as labor for war industries and agriculture was much in demand given the large number of people in the armed forces. Many Americans harbored nativist feelings, a philosophy which saw ‘‘foreigners’’ as the main cause of the economic conditions facing the country. Mexican Americans were the major scapegoats in the Southwest, and even Mexican-American citizens (and their American-born children) and deeprooted Mexican-American families were subject to repatriation campaigns. Hispanics also tended to be overrepresented in the armed services because of a high percentage of draft-age youth lacking a college education and professional development experience. Thus, military service was often viewed as a way out of economic hardship, and a path toward upward mobility and social equality. This was a logical line of reasoning as few Hispanics qualified for draft deferments. From the jungles of the South Pacific to the deserts of North Africa to the invasion of Europe, the Hispanic community was overrepresented in combat units, suffering casualties in excessive numbers. In part this was due to the fact that a great many volunteered for more dangerous missions and service branches, such as paratroops and marines, which both paid more and led to greater appreciation. With the exception of Hispanics and African Americans, U.S. casualties were far below those suffered by other countries. With disproportionate participation in both War World I and War World II,

224 |

Hispanic American Veterans

coupled with Mexican Americans earning proportionately more Medals of Honor and other accolades for gallantry than any other ethnic or racial group, it was surprising to many Hispanics how their loyalty to the United States was continually questioned. At the war’s conclusion in early August 1945, no Hispanic faced charges of desertion, mutiny, or treason, while 17 Mexican Americans were awarded the Medal of Honor, of which five were granted posthumously. The first of this esteemed band of brothers was Private Jose´ P. Martinez, who participated in the American attack on the Aleutian Islands in May 1943. Mortally wounded, an American Veterans chapter and an American Legion post are named after him. Just as significant is Guy Gabaldo´n. Having been raised by JapaneseAmerican parents for a good part of his young life, Gabaldo´ n, a Los Angeles native, spoke the Japanese language fluently. This skill allowed him to effectively communicate with Japanese soldiers in order to negotiate their peaceful surrender. Gabaldo´n made his mark at the battle of Saipan Island, which led to a feature film, From Here to Eternity (1953), illustrating his valor. In 1990 Gabaldo´n published his memoir Saipan: Suicide Island, which detailed his heroic experiences in the Marine Corps. The autobiography, moreover, shares how his Japanese-American foster family was mistreated. For example, his two foster brothers fought in War World II, yet their parents and sister were uprooted from their home and sent to a U.S. detention center. A quarter century later, in 1970, Gabaldo´n returned his issued Navy Cross and Purple Heart to the government in order to voice his displeasure against patterns of racial

discrimination. World War II Medal of Honor winner Jose´ Lo´pez also endured patterns of injustice as he was regularly denied restaurant service in his home state of Texas. Lo´pez killed more than 100 German soldiers while protecting his company during a tactical withdrawal in Belgium. His Medal of Honor citation described his feat as ‘‘seemingly suicidal.’’ Another World War II Medal of Honor winner that dealt with an ungrateful nation was Macario Garcia, an army staff sergeant. Perhaps what is most telling is that after Garcia returned home to Sugarland, Texas, after being honored at a White House ceremony, he was refused service at a diner that did not serve Hispanics. Yet another Hispanic hero is Horacio Rivero. Born in Puerto Rico, Rivero participated in the Iwo Jima and Okinawa crusades. For his efforts he was awarded the Legion of Merit and later became the first Hispanic four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy. Several U.S. streets were named in honor of Hispanics as in the town of Silvis, Illinois. Eight Hispanics on one street were killed in action, with a total of 84 Hispanics seeing action in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. As a result of this contribution, the street, which was once called Second Street, was suitably renamed Hero Street. A memorial park was built to honor local fallen soldiers. Hispanic families in Silvis sacrificed more young men in the nation’s war effort than any other city of comparable size in the United States. Hispanics not only fought on the front lines for democracy abroad, but demonstrated leadership and teamwork at home by aiding in wartime labor shortages. As workers went off to war, Hispanics gained entry to jobs that had been

Hispanic American Veterans virtually closed to them in the past, which allowed many to move away from traditional occupations such as those in agriculture. Mexican-American women warrant special attention as unprecedented numbers of them joined the workforce in the defense industry, especially in steel, meat packing, and ammunition assembly plants throughout the Southwest. Hispanic women whether mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, friends, or neighbors also did their part for the war by serving as members of the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) and as nurses for the Red Cross. Women also supported the war cause through organizational channels. In 1944, the Association of Hispanic American Mothers and Wives was founded in Tucson. With a chapter in Phoenix as well, this organization published a newsletter which shared stories abroad, sold war bonds, collected scrap metal and clothing, provided day-care services, translated for Spanish-speaking families when needed, and even saved waste fats and grease in order to convert to glycerin for high explosives. This association as well as other mutual aid and benefit organizations helped not only uplift the morale of Hispanic soldiers, but it also served as a reminder of their contributions to the war effort. With the exception of the important role played by Anthony Quinn, himself of Mexican descent, as a MexicanAmerican marine private in the popular War World II epic Guadalcanal Diary (1943) and in the modest film A Medal For Benny (1945), the story of War World II Hispanic sacrifices was often forgotten. However, the voice of other Americans who were not as overrepresented as Mexican Americans during this war were well chronicled in various

| 225

books and movies. In important ways, both of the aforementioned films helped humanize Hispanics to larger society during a period of overt racism and discrimination. Artistic forms of expression and literary works about Hispanic heroism in American wars have been often failed to achieve wide recognition. Rau´l Morı´n’s Among the Valiant: Mexican Americans in WWII and Korea, to cite one example, was denied publication for more than a decade. As the first book to document the worthwhile armed service support of Mexican Americans during the middle decades of the twentieth century, Morı´n was unsuccessful at soliciting a publishing house until the American GI Forum, a Hispanic veterans’ advocacy organization, assisted with its publication and distribution in 1963. Even today, the contributions of Hispanics have occasionally been dismissed. Renowned documentary filmmaker Ken Burns in his 2007 14-hour World War II film entitled The War initially ignored the contributions of Hispanics. After coming under criticism from Latino advocacy groups (such as the Hispanic Association of Corporate Responsibility, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and the American GI Forum), university scholars, military veterans, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, modest supplementary content was added. The lack of Hispanic representation is significant because many deem Burns as America’s foremost documentarian and this work as the definitive record of the World War II experience just as Burns’s film The Civil War (2002) is for that conflict. The absence of Hispanics is also disconcerting because African Americans, Japanese Americans, and other historically marginalized groups are thoughtfully explored in the film, which took six years to create.

226 |

Hispanic American Veterans

Returning to a nation deeply segregated by law and practice, Hispanics were determined to be no longer considered ‘‘foreigners,’’ but full-fledged citizens. Equipped with a greater degree of education and housing opportunities under the GI Bill (see Servicemen’s Readjustment Act), as well as a mindset that their service earned them the right to enjoy the full benefits of American citizenship, many Hispanics were unwilling to stand for intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry that dominated their parents’ experience. More than previous generations, Hispanics, particularly veterans, became increasingly active in civic and civil rights organizations in order to help dismantle school segregation and ensure voting rights were protected. Although long-term and widespread change escaped their grasp, unequal distribution of power, privilege, and participation was confronted through negotiation, organizational networking, and political alliances. In doing so, their efforts helped the next generation of Hispanics sweep the nation’s consciousness during the 1960s and 1970s. Notwithstanding modest success for creating space for social inclusion and cultural relevance, the War World II Hispanic generation righted a number of substantive wrongs through litigation, legislation, and other forms of social mobilization activities. Yet, here too, Hispanic advances have not received as much attention as African American achievements.

Korean War provided Hispanics real, although limited, opportunities to climb the ladder of the leadership ranks as many became officers and entered the previously segregated Army Air Corps. Representing less than 3 percent of the U.S. population during the Korean War, there was nevertheless no shortage of Hispanic patriots. The first Hispanic flying ace was Colonel Manuel J. Ferna´ndez Jr., who flew 125 combat missions in the F-86, engaging opposition MIG aircraft. Ferna´ ndez accumulated 14.5 ‘‘kills,’’ which placed him sixtieth among the top U.S. Air Force aces in twentieth-century wars. Interestingly, an all-Hispanic combat unit surfaced during the Korean War. Puerto Rico’s 65th Infantry Regiment was initially constituted as the Puerto Rico Regiment of Volunteer Infantry, yet engaged in intense combat and long service. For their effort, members of the 65th Infantry Regiment were decorated with four Distinguished Service Crosses and 124 Silver Star medals. The story of the 65th Puerto Rican Regiment, the only all-Hispanic unit in the history of the U.S. Army, was featured in a 2007 PBS documentary entitled Borinqueneers. More than 60,000 Puerto Ricans fought in the Korean War, most of them volunteers. With nine Latino Medal of Honor recipients during the Korean War, the standard for Hispanic participation in U.S. military campaigns established by World War II continued.

Korean War

Vietnam War

Hispanics continued to prove their Americanism by defending U.S. democracy in the Korean Conflict even though they were still denied such democracy at home. Unlike preceding conflicts, the

The Vietnam War saw Hispanics participate in large numbers in U.S. Army and Marine Corps combat units, the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and Air Force. During America’s longest conflict, another

Hispanic American Veterans pilot who distinguished himself in combat was Lieutenant Everett Alvarez Jr., who became the second longest-held prisoner of war (POW) in U.S. history. In captivity for eight and a half years, Alvarez was the first U.S. serviceman shot down over North Vietnam. Alvarez earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Silver Star, two Purple Hearts, two Legions of Merit, and two Bronze Stars, the latter two with valor. Yet another Hispanic Vietnam War hero was Phil Valdez. Killed while saving two marines in 1967, Valdez was awarded the Navy Cross, and eventually had a U.S. Navy ship bearing his name. Perhaps one of the most distinguished soldiers during the Vietnam War was orphan Roy P. Benavidez. Earning the Medal of Honor for his heroism, Sergeant Benavidez single-handedly saved the lives of eight fellow Green Berets despite severe injuries due to hand-tohand combat. Upon the conclusion of the American War in Vietnam, Richard E. Cavazos, a native of Texas, became the first Hispanic general in the U.S. Army. During his long tenure of military service, he commanded forces in Vietnam, served in the Pentagon, and served as commander at Fort McPherson, Georgia. In 1996, Medal of Honor winner Sergeant Alfredo Gonza´lez, who died in battle in 1968, became the first Mexican American to have a destroyer named after him by the U.S. Navy. Despite the Hispanic population being less than 5 percent during the Vietnam era, roughly 25 percent of frontline casualties were Hispanic. This truth became gradually more alarming to the Hispanic community, specifically among Mexican Americans. In fact, the stark Hispanic causality rate was confirmed by

| 227

sociologist Ralph Guzma´n, a University of California professor. As part of his ongoing work with the Ford Foundation’s Mexican-American Study Project, Dr. Guzma´n revealed that about 20 percent of the Vietnam War dead from the five Southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas were Hispanic or Spanishsurnamed persons. At the time of the study’s publication in 1968, the Hispanic population of those states was under 12 percent. Guzma´ n validated that Hispanics enlisted as in previous wars to prove their loyalty to America, while trying to escape an impoverished upbringing. Soon enough, Guzma´ n’s findings served as an impetus for Chicano Movement anti-war activists to draw even greater attention to the disproportionate causality rate among Hispanics, while mobilizing against the draft, and ultimately the war. Guzma´ n’s assertions about the motives of why so many Hispanics enlisted in Vietnam are echoed by decorated Vietnam veteran Charley Trujillo in his collection of interviews in Soldados: Chicanos in Vietnam (1990). Today one can look no further to find evidence of Hispanic causality rates than the Pentagon’s list of 57,600 Americans who lost their lives in Southeast Asia. The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC, lists 103 Garcı´as, 86 Gonza´ leses, and 75 Martı´nezes, the three most common Hispanic surnames, on the monument. In the end, more than 80,000 Hispanics served in the Vietnam War.

Persian Gulf War By the time of the Persian Gulf War at the dawn of the 1990s, Hispanics were

228 |

Hispanic American Veterans

well situated in all branches of U.S. armed services. In part fueled by mass marketing campaigns that targeted Hispanic youth as viable recruits, approximately 20,000 Hispanic men and women participated in Operation Desert Shield/Storm among some half a million who served in the short-lived conflict. With an alarming high school dropout rate that hovers around 40 percent, many Hispanics have been drawn to military service in hopes of developing a professional skill, earning a high school equivalency diploma, and gaining a greater perspective on what to do with their lives. With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military decreased in size. From 1992 to 2001, the numbers of active duty personnel dropped off by about 24 percent, yet the number of Hispanics ready for action increased by 30 percent. Whether in the U.S. Marines, Navy, Air Force, or Army, Hispanics were well represented during the Persian Gulf military operation. Indeed, Hispanics accounted for about 10 percent of all military personnel killed either in action or noncombat-related activities during the first Gulf conflict.

War on Global Terrorism Hispanics continue to defend U.S. borders from Islamic extremism in the evolving ‘‘War on Global Terrorism.’’ In fact, four of the first coalition soldiers to die in Iraq in March 2003 were noncitizen Hispanics who were given posthumous citizenship. The very first U.S. Army soldier to die in Iraq was Jose´ Gutie´rrez, a Guatemalan native. A week later, Jesu´ s Sua´ rez del Solar and Jose´ Angel Garibay, both Mexican citizens, died in action. A day thereafter, Colombian Diego Rinco´n was killed in combat.

Following this trajectory, it is not surprising that early on in the War on Terrorism, Hispanics accounted for nearly 20 percent of all fatalities. This war has also seen Hispanics serve in the highest of positions. In the beginning of ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom,’’ the commanding officer of coalition forces was Lieutenant General Ricardo Sa´nchez. Currently, one in ten of American military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is Hispanic. To shine light on this reality, in July 2008 the national cable TV network HBO featured a Mexican-American character in its seven-hour miniseries Generation Kill. The series explores true stories of marines fighting in the early days of the Iraq War. Collectively, Hispanics account for about 12 percent of the armed forces in general, with nearly half being of Mexican descent. In particular, Hispanics make up 14 percent of the Marine Corps, surpassing the proportion of African Americans in this military branch since 2000. The Marines, as the most dangerous of branches, puts Hispanics at greater risk for permanent injuries or death. In addition, Hispanics comprise about 18 percent of all military personnel that handle weaponry. Although Hispanics make up approximately 15 percent of the U.S. population, only about 10 percent are eligible to enlist due to legal and educational requirements. Bearing this in mind, it is clear that Hispanics are overrepresented in the armed forces, especially in the high-risk ranks. Despite a number of military advances, Hispanics are still bogged down in the lowest paying military positions, while generally relegated to the lowest ranks. According to the Department of Defense, one in four Hispanics in both the U.S. Army and Marine

Hispanic American Veterans Corps were occupied in such ranks as ‘‘Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship,’’ while representing just 3 percent of the office corps in all service branches. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that, as of 2001, there were more than one million Hispanic veterans, almost 60 percent of whom served in times of war. There are also thousands of Hispanics in the National Guard and reserve units as well as hundreds in the Department of Defense civilian workforce supporting uniformed soldiers. The American GI Forum is the principal Hispanic veterans’ organization, which has about 65,000 members (see Veterans Administration) and the only primarily Hispanic one authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist veterans claiming benefits. The Hispanic War Veterans of America was founded in 2004. The purposes of both are similar: to assist not only Hispanic but all war veterans in achieving recognition and adequate benefits. They seek to present a united front of Hispanic war veterans and achieve for them full, nondiscriminatory access to benefits, education, and employment opportunities. They are also pledged to patriotism, community service, and remembrance of the deeds of Hispanic veterans. Darius V. Echeverrı´a

Further Reading Amaya, Hector. ‘‘Dying American or the Violence of Citizenship: Latinos in Iraq.’’ Latinos Studies 5 (2007): 3–24. Bachman, Jerald G. ‘‘Who Chooses Military Service? Correlates of Propensity and Enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces.’’ Military Psychology 12, no. 1 (2000): 1–30.

| 229

Benavidez, Roy P., and John R. Craig. Medal of Honor: One Man’s Journey from Poverty and Prejudice. Washington: Brassey’s, 1999. The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, United States Senate. Medal of Honor Recipients 1863–1978. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979. Department of Defense. Hispanics in America’s Defense. Washington, DC: U.S. Printing Office, 1990. Gabaldon, Guy. Saipan: Suicide Island: A True Story. Corpus Christi, TX: Guy Gabaldon Publisher, 1990. Hispanic War Veterans of America. www.hwva.org. Mariscal, George. Aztla´n and Viet Nam: Chicano and Chicana Experiences of the War. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. Meier, Matt S., and Feliciano Rivera. Dictionary of Mexican American History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981. Morı´n, Rau´l. Among the Valiant: Mexican Americans in WWII and Korea. Los Angeles, CA: Borden, 1963. O’Donnell-Rosales, John. Hispanic Confederates. Baltimore, MD: Clearfield Company, 2006. Rivas-Rodriguez, Maggie. A Legacy Greater Than Words: Stories of U.S. Latinos & Latinas of the WWII Generation. Austin, TX: U.S. Latino & Latina WWII Oral History Project, 2007. Segal, David R., and Mandy Wechsler Segal. ‘‘America’s Military Population.’’ Population Bulletin 59, no. 4 (December 2004): 1–44. Thompson, Jerry D. Vaqueros in Blue and Gray. Austin, TX: Presidial Press, 1976. Trujillo, Charley. Soldados: Chicanos in Viet Nam. San Jose´, CA: Chusma House Publications, 1990. Ve´lez-Iba´n˜ez, Carlos G. ‘‘Wars as Sadness: Trading Souls.’’ In Border Visions: Mexican Cultures of the Southwest United

230 |

Homes States. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1996.

HOMES See Veterans’ Homes

HOSPITALS See Veterans’ Hospitals

HOUSING From land warrants after the Revolutionary War to the home ownership boom following World War II, veterans’ housing has been a powerful force in shaping the social and physical structure of the United Statues and a powerful tool for implementing government policy. Throughout U.S. history, the impact of veteran housing opportunities has been counterweighted by the effect of homeless populations following the return of veteran soldiers from abroad. Characterized by policies alternately considered too generous and too sparing, the provision of veterans’ housing and related laws and policies have profoundly shaped the economic and social structure of the United States.

The Revolutionary War From the time of the Revolutionary War through 1855, grants of free land issued to veterans, called bounty land warrants, were the housing-related benefit available to veterans. Bounty land warrants were given to U.S. veterans who served in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. Such bounty lands were typically located in western frontier areas.

By placing veterans on the frontier, the government located a trained military force in locations considered vulnerable to attack. This enabled veterans to protect settlements from incursions and thus encouraged expansion. Veterans who applied for and were granted bounty land were also typically granted exemptions from taxation ranging from a few years to life, providing veterans a further incentive to settle the western frontiers.

The Civil War to the 21st Century Beginning after the Civil War, the federal government began to provide significant benefits to veterans. Generally, these benefits were viewed as the country’s obligation to those soldiers who had served to protect it. One such provision was to encourage veterans to settle the West under the Homestead Act of 1862. Families occupying farms received 160 acres after five years, but veterans and their households had this period reduced by their time in service. Other benefits included the responsibility for providing shelter to veterans who were disabled, and who were thus unable to independently maintain their livelihoods. The federal government provided housing for these veterans by instituting a system of soldiers’ homes, known as the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers (the National Home), beginning in 1865 (see Veterans’ Homes). Like other benefits provided during this period, soldiers’ homes were viewed not as charitable institutions but as benefits to veterans as partial repayment of the debt for which the government was both practically and morally obligated to pay to each soldier who had fought in its

Housing service. The resulting system provided a housing opportunity to Union Civil War veterans including food, health care, and employment opportunities. In stark contrast to comparable non-veteran civilians, Union veterans were able to avoid both the poor conditions and the social stigma associated with those forced into local almshouses. For admission into a home, a veteran was required to have an honorable discharge and a disability that prevented him from supporting himself through work. Such veterans were also required to abide by the regulations of the homes, which typically were run according to disciplined military tradition. Initially, the soldiers’ homes housed African American and white veterans in a generally integrated environment. However, by 1900, Jim Crow eliminated such integration and members of African American companies ate at separate tables and utilized separate services from white veterans (see African American Veterans, Civil War). With four branches of the National Home, the United States had a functioning institution for housing disabled veterans by the end of the 1870s. By 1900, there were eight branches of the National Home and by 1920 ten branches. In 1930 when the National Home was consolidated into the Veterans Administration, there were 12 homes. As the number of disabled veterans exceeded the capacity of the branches of the National Home from its inception, in the 1880s individual states began to open similar facilities. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, 27 states provided homes for disabled veterans. These were originally built and operated at each state’s expense.

| 231

In 1888 the federal government enacted a law to provide for payment of federal aid to state homes, ‘‘An Act to Provide Aid to State or Territorial Homes for the Support of Disabled Soldiers and Sailors of the United States.’’ The act provided $100 per annum assistance to state homes for each eligible veteran. Congress established per diem rates in 1960, which it periodically increased. Former states of the Confederacy also established homes for veterans. In addition to homes for Union soldiers an additional 14 states provided housing for former Confederate soldiers. The homes were considered desirable assets to the communities in which they were located. In addition, to be generally attractive facilities, the homes required an ongoing supply of goods and services. This in turn acted to bolster the economy in nearby cities and towns and encouraged the acceptance of the homes in the broader communities.

Civil Relief Acts During the Civil War, Congress passed a moratorium on civil lawsuits brought against Union soldiers. As to housing, this meant that any civil legal action, notably eviction and foreclosure, was suspended until after the soldier returned from service. Congress’ intent in passing the moratorium was twofold: to protect the national interest in a capable army and to protect the service members from debts that they could not afford. First, Congress wanted service members to be able to fight the war without the distraction of problems that might arise at home. Second, because most soldiers during the Civil War were paid poorly, it was difficult for them to pay debts such as mortgages.

232 |

Housing

During World War I, Congress passed a similar law, the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1918, which also protected servicemen from certain civil actions including repossession of property, bankruptcy, and foreclosure while they were actively serving. The 1918 act remained in place only until shortly after World War I. In 1940 a similar statute was enacted to protect World War II veterans. Unlike the prior versions, the 1940 act did not expire after the end of the war, as it did after World War I. Thus, soldiers serving after 1940 have received uninterrupted coverage from bankruptcy and foreclosure. The modern Servicemembers Civil Relief Act notably provides foreclosure protection for recently returned veterans for a period of 90 days after return. In the early part of the twenty-first century various members of Congress have attempted to extend the 90-day moratorium on foreclosure to one year. As of 2008, these attempts have been unsuccessful.

World War I Upon returning from service, World War I veterans were faced with few housing benefits or opportunities. Even veterans who had been disabled were unable to obtain adequate housing or opportunities. The result was that World War I veterans were forced to compete for the same limited charitable resources as destitute non-veterans. As the Great Depression swept across the nation, the need and suffering of veterans increased dramatically, and the destitute veteran became a familiar sight for the twodecade period from the end of World War I until World War II.

The government’s treatment of veterans during this period is typified by its behavior toward the Bonus Expeditionary Force (see Bonus March). Comprised of about 20,000 veterans, the Bonus Expeditionary Force arrived in Washington, DC, in May 1932, to urge Congress to provide cash bonuses for veterans. The Hoover administration was unresponsive to the Bonus Expeditionary Force’s requests, and in July 1932, the president ordered 600 troops, including mounted cavalry and tanks, to drive the veterans from their makeshift camps. The political response to the president’s use of the military force against needy veterans was extremely negative and played a part in President Hoover’s failed reelection bid. Although, the Bonus Expeditionary Force was unsuccessful in achieving its intended goal, it helped to establish the political environment for the passage of significant housing legislation after World War II. When veterans returned to petition the new president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his administration offered the veterans work in the Civilian Conservation Corps at one dollar a day plus food, clothing, and shelter. After some initial complaints at the low pay, most of the veterans accepted. By June 1933, 2,600 veterans had accepted the offer. Veterans arriving in the capital in subsequent months were offered the same choice and by August 1935, over 8,000 transient veterans had been enrolled in the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Housing After World War II—The GI Bill of Rights On June 22, 1944, President Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen’s

Housing Readjustment Act of 1944, more commonly know as the GI Bill of Rights. The overall objectives of the bill were aimed at diminishing the economic and sociological problems of returning veterans, which had been so evident after World War I. The GI Bill was intended to prevent a repeat of the Bonus Expeditionary Force and a relapse into economic depression. Although not originally a major provision of President Roosevelt’s plan to prevent a relapse of the post-World War I conditions, the housing provisions in the bill, which were greatly influenced by the American Legion, have proven to be the most important contemporary development in veterans’ housing. These guaranteed low-interest home loans to veterans who had served for at least 90 days, or who had been injured or disabled in the line of duty. Notably, the government did not itself provide loans; rather, in lieu of a down payment, it provided a guarantee to private lenders for a certain amount of the home value. Veterans were eligible for a mortgage of up to 100 percent of the cost of a new home. Few loans were made in 1944, as the initial bill provided a maximum loan guarantee of only $2,000 and contained cumbersome provisions for processing applications. In 1945, Congress amended the act streamlining the loan process and raising the maximum guarantee to $4,000. In 1950 Congress again increased the amount of the guarantee to the lesser of 60 percent, or $7,500, making the program even more attractive to private lenders. In the 1950s and 1960s, the GI Bill’s loan guarantee program was used by millions of veterans, resulting in the development of modern suburbs. Suburbs spread rapidly in the 1950s, as the GI

| 233

Bill’s low-interest housing loans in combination with the higher incomes of veterans having used the GI Bill’s educational provision entered the workforce. The result was a rate of home ownership in the United States after World War II that was roughly doubled from what it was before. The benefits provided under the GI Bill have been amended and extended numerous times since its enactment. Notably, Congress extended loan guarantee benefits to Korean War veterans in 1952 and to post-Korean War veterans, including those who served during peacetime, in 1966. By the end of the 1980s, more than 12 million GI Bill loans had been guaranteed and by the end of the 1990s the number exceeded 15 million. The maximum eligible home price and maximum guarantee amounts have also been repeatedly increased. As of 2009, the maximum VA home loan amount was $417,000 with a maximum guarantee of 25 percent of the loan amounts and even higher in certain high-cost regions.

Homeless Veterans Since the enactment of the GI Bill in 1944, with few exceptions, the federal government’s provision of housing assistance for veterans has been limited to home ownership. Beginning in the 1980s, however, large numbers of veterans, particularly Vietnam War veterans, began to experience homelessness. In response to this increasing need, Congress has enacted numerous programs implemented by the VA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The two most significant VA programs have been Health Care for Homeless Veterans and

234 |

Housing

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans. The VA also has various programs through which it has made available surplus VA properties to organizations serving homeless veterans. It similarly sells and leases certain foreclosed properties to organizations that serve homeless people. The VA also offers supportive services, including help in finding private or government-assisted housing. Health Care for Homeless Veterans relies on community-based residential treatment facilities to provide services to homeless veterans who are mentally ill. In general, its services are time limited to less than six months. As part of the Health Care for Homeless Veterans’ program, the VA also has a Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program, which is designed to encourage the creation of new facilities for homeless veterans.

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans provides homeless veterans rehabilitative services while occupying beds at VA medical centers. It offers residential treatment to homeless veterans providing beds at VA medical centers throughout the country. Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans typically provides services for roughly 5,000 homeless veterans annually. In addition to these programs, in 1992, VA and HUD jointly create the HUD-VA Supported Housing program for homeless veterans. This program is limited to veterans with severe psychiatric or substance abuse disorders. Through the program HUD supports housing for veterans with Section 8 (psychologically unfit) discharges and the VA provides case management, health, and other supportive services, for the term of the Section 8 assistance.

An American Legion volunteer serves a holiday meal to a homeless veteran at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dallas, 2006. [AP Photo/Matt Slocum]

Housing The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the major coordinator between the government and the private agencies that care for homeless veterans, estimates that 200,000 veterans are homeless at any given time, in the years after 2000, and 400,000 are homeless during the course of a year. This is about a third of the national homeless population. Afghan and Iraq War veterans are becoming a major concern for advocate and veterans’ groups, as homelessness is a long-term problem: frequently veterans who attempt to hold jobs and live in apartments or houses are suffering from long-term psychological problems or substance abuse that only compel them to leave their homes years later. The lack of support from family or friends is a major problem, along with the fact that many government programs are designed to provide housing for families with children. Given their problems, it is also difficult to put homeless veterans in touch with the services that are available.

Conclusion With the exclusion of land grants in the early history of the nation, prior to World War II, veterans without service-related disabilities were offered no housing benefits or opportunities. Rather, returning veterans were left to their own devices in obtaining housing and readjusting to

| 235

civilian life. Since World War II, the provision of housing benefits has been very heavily slanted towards home ownership. Recently, provisions have been made for homeless veterans, although it still is the case that the only significant housing programs for veterans are guaranteed home mortgage loans. Since the state and federal governments made Western lands available to Revolutionary War veterans, housing for veterans and related policies have had a profound impact on the social, political, and economic culture of the United States. By fostering home ownership, veterans’ assistance programs have significantly reinforced the American tradition that families ought to live in suburban private homes rather than (as in many European countries) urban apartments. Joseph Rosenblum

Further Reading National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. www.nchv.org. Severo, Richard, and Lewis Milford. The Wages of War: When America’s Soldiers Came Home: From Valley Forge to Vietnam. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Taylor, Richard H., and Sandra Wright Taylor. Homeward Bound: American Veterans Return from War. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007.

This page intentionally left blank

I combatants are indistinguishable. Such was the context of missions to Kurdistan, the Balkans, and Haiti in the decade preceding 9/11. Overall, both the quality and accumulating number of deployments in the nineties served as an important preface to what later war in Iraq and Afghanistan would entail. Cumulatively, years of deploying conventional forces in chaotic, fluid environments placed enormous pressures on the individuals and institutions serving in harm’s way. The U.S. military had not recovered from these strains when terrorist attacks began in 2001. Military service in the modern day is also a marked departure from past practice. Once the highly unpopular peacetime draft was abolished in 1973 and the all-volunteer force began, service reverted to a much smaller, restricted segment of American society. A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on recruit demographics noted a number of distinct characteristics separating the military from mainstream society. New service members

IRAQ WAR VETERANS For the Troops, But Against the War The nature of a war determines the nature of its veterans. This historical axiom applies to three centuries of American conflicts and is no less true for the contemporary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In many respects, America’s current military campaigns are distinct from more familiar past conflicts. Unlike World War II, post-9/11 military strategy lacks a linear road map to victory. There are no enemy capitals to seize and mark a decisive end to the fighting. But there is a better comparison to be drawn. The American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are more akin to the abortive 1992 humanitarian relief mission to Somalia. In practice, the American military deployed since the end of the Cold War has faced missions against failed states that cannot govern themselves and within environments wherein innocent civilians and military 237

238 |

Iraq War Veterans

predominantly come from the southern and western states and from rural areas of the country. Although both active duty and reserve personnel have a higher percentage of high school graduates, the civilian sector of the population has more than twice the number of individuals with college credits. Income also separates many recruits from the rest of America. The 2005 GAO study commented that even though median income for recruits was slightly higher than their civilian counterparts ($44,500 versus $43,300), few Americans in the highest income bracket serve in uniform. In fact, a 1999 U.S. Defense Department study indicated that fewer than 25 percent of new recruits bound for active duty were drawn from the highest and lowest quartile of the economic scale (GAO 2005, 50–55, 88–89). Actual military service in Iraq and Afghanistan has followed these broader historical trends. By 2006, a total of approximately 1.3 million U.S. service members had participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Measured in terms of simple demographics, veterans of these wars comprised less than one-half of one percent of Americans. If only combat veterans were counted, the actual proportion shrinks even further. Multiple tours of duty further reduce even this small number. Lacking an adequate force structure after significant downsizing in the nineties, the American military has required service members to endure longer tours of duty and multiple deployments. In 2006, as many as onethird of army personnel had served at least two tours, while almost two-thirds had served in Iraq and Afghanistan (Heffernan 2006). Unlike Vietnam, average

deployments for individuals and whole units have been repeatedly extended beyond one year. The age of contemporary veterans also makes them distinct. By 2005, nearly 5,600 of the service members in Iraq and Afghanistan were 50 or older. In part, this disparity is a function of U.S. National Guard and Reserve units deployed to the region that are comprised of older members. Four out of ten troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are guardsmen or reservists. More than one-fifth of the Guard and Reserve that deployed to fight was over 40 years old. In comparison, only 6 percent of the regular military that went to war was in the same demographic (Heffernan 2006; Hemingway 2005). Years before 9/11, public attitudes about the American military appeared to have turned a corner. In the aftermath of U.S. victory in the Gulf War, it seemed once again acceptable to be overtly patriotic and supportive of the troops (see Gulf War Veterans). The yellow ribbons festooning public places marked a celebration of the military and military service. Tom Brokaw’s book The Greatest Generation (1998) extolled the value of sacrifice during World War II and granted iconic status to the Americans who had served in that conflict (see World War II Veterans). Vicarious cultural celebrations of bravery and patriotism without actual military participation were commonplace in the nineties, as shown by enormously popular films (see Film and Veterans) such as Saving Private Ryan (1998) (Auster 2002; Morrison 1999). Commentators at the time speculated about the causes of the shift in attitudes. Some saw the final passage of the ’’Vietnam syndrome’’ and a sincere effort to jettison its debilitating impact

Iraq War Veterans | 239 on American society (Kane 2003). Others saw the baby boom generation, bereft of its own glory in a time of crisis, lauding the accomplishments of its elders to fill the gap (Moses 2002). Stripped of its Hollywood gloss, public support for an actual long-term military commitment abroad proved to be another matter entirely. A March 2008 poll by the Washington Post and ABC News reported that 63 percent of respondents believed that the war in Iraq was not worth fighting (Angus Reid March 2008). In fact, popular discontent with the ground war had begun within a year after the invasion of Iraq and grown steadily worse over time. In contrast, the American public support for the military remained a distinct and inverse quality, at least in the early days of the conflict. A September 2006 Gallup poll recorded a 72 percent favorable rating for U.S. military personnel, double that which supported military operations in Iraq (Saad 2006). The survey reflected an important dichotomy between service and the object of that service. On the one hand, some Americans wanted to offer their sincere support to the military in an effort to exorcise the ghosts of Vietnam. In other cases, acclaim was more a rhetorical device that reflected the fever pitch of patriotism after September 2001 and masked true opinions regarding the military and the persistence of anti-military sentiments within the American public. Within a few short years, the conceptual barrier separating the troops from their mission had eroded. In part, the decline was prompted at home by the ongoing debate over the need to preserve civil liberties and national security. Most telling was the outright public rejection of a military draft. As late as October

2007, two-thirds of Americans polled completely dismissed the idea (Kelly 2007; Bailey 2007). The erosion of support was also encouraged by debates over the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay military prison and the use of torture in interrogating ‘‘enemy combatants’’ in U.S. custody (Commonweal 2007; Hentoff 2008). Equally damaging to military credibility were alleged reports of abuse of Iraq civilians during the course of military operations in Iraq. Civilian deaths in Haditha in November 2005 initiated a full-scale investigation of misconduct. As later revelations regarding the nature of civilian casualties at the hands of U.S. military forces becomes more common, the callousness of the American service members increasingly defined the public debate, stripping away the gloss that had protected the military throughout much of the war (Hedges and al-Arian 2007). By June 2006, a majority of Americans (57 percent) asked by the Opinion Research Corporation believed that American troops had committed atrocities in Iraq (Angus Reid June 2006). Caught amidst the fickle tides of public support, modern veterans are disconnected from American society to a degree that is more profound than during the Vietnam era (see Vietnam War Veterans). Contemporary media access to the battlefield is unprecedented, dwarfing coverage of Southeast Asia 40 years ago. Beyond the traditional television outlets are a host of internet blogs, Web sites, and YouTube selections (Multinational Force—Iraq). However, this unprecedented exposure has not translated into public cognizance of either the cost or effort of military service. It is difficult if not impossible to inculcate the viewer with the sense of fear, fatigue,

A public service announcement urging veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to join Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. [AP Photo/Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Ad Council]

Iraq War Veterans | 241 or danger depicted on the screen. What currently exists is an understanding more akin to a ‘‘first person shooter’’ video game than the real war (Grossman 2005; Lugo 2006). Where broader public participation in the military might have bridged that gap in the sixties during Vietnam, when the mass of World War II veterans populated America, that link has grown increasingly tentative. Journalist Sara Corbett wrote in 2004 that veterans, particularly the wounded, ‘‘must live with the confounding mix of anonymity and exposure wrought by surviving the war’’ (Corbett 2004). It is in this context that the uniform, almost reflexive, support for the troops often rings hollow for returning veterans. Many have turned their backs on peacetime society because they lack the faith in ever reestablishing a connection with it. The systemic difficulties discussed below—in medical care, employment, and other fundamental areas—have only reinforced this point. One veteran spoke for many when he commented in 2006 that ‘‘I realized that whatever friends I had made before the Army no longer really existed. The only friends that I now have are the ones I made while I was in’’ (Buzzell 2006).

Healing Wounds in the New Century The quality of contemporary medical care for the combat soldier is unprecedented in American military history. Advances in trauma medicine, access to advanced diagnostic equipment, and rapid transport to medical facilities from the battlefield have significantly improved care. As a result, 90 percent

of American casualties survive, a vast improvement over Vietnam or even the 1991 Gulf War. By 2008, nearly 30,000 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action and in need of varying degrees of long and short-term care (Heffernan 2006; O’Hanlon and Campbell 2008, 19). The mental strain placed upon soldiers has also contributed substantially to a new wave of post-traumatic stress disorder. The particular nature of urban insurgency has placed enormous stress on the American military serving abroad. The prospect of death or wounds from an improvised explosive device or a suicide attack, coupled with the almost complete isolation of U.S. military personnel from the Iraqi people, are benchmarks in a war that oscillates between frantic activity and mind-numbing boredom (Mockenhaupt 2006; Thompson 2006; Fahim 2005). According to a 2005 Department of Veterans Affairs study of 170,000 OIF veterans, approximately 34,000 were diagnosed with some form of psychological disorder. These numbers have grown in subsequent years (Heffernan 2006; Dyhouse 2005). Local communities and state governments have attempted to address the needs of veterans in ways that are reminiscent of the post-WWII era (Gitelson 1945). Civilian and military leaders alike have recognized the need to integrate veterans, their families, the community, and the private sector into the process of demobilization. Minnesota, for example, initiated the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program that requires mandatory meetings for returning guardsmen and their spouses at 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervals after redeployment home. Counseling covers parenting, marital relationships, health benefits, and employment. The program includes both state and private entities such as TriWest,

242 |

Iraq War Veterans

which administers the health program for soldiers, and Lutheran Social Services, an ecumenical advocacy organization (Jensen 2008). The Department of Veterans Affairs has supplemented these efforts by offering nearly 200,000 deployed guard and reserve troops additional medical, educational, and home loan benefits (National Guard 2005). Unfortunately, federal support for returning veterans, particularly from the VA and other affiliated agencies, has been uneven at best. In terms of raw numbers, VA budgets increased consistently during the Bush administration. As part of its fiscal year 2007 presentation, the Office of Management and Budget made the point that the Veterans Administration medical budget had increased an average of 9.2 percent a year since 2001 (Office of Management and Budget 2008). Other initiatives have also followed funding increases. VA officials created the Seamless Transition Office in January 2005 with the intent to coordinate medical and other benefits between the Veterans Administration and the Defense Department for service members leaving active duty (Government Accountability Office 2005, 1, 9). Despite these advances, it is an open question as to whether or not budgets and policies have kept pace with actual need. The large percentage of wounded that survive, for example, require modern prosthetics that are truly wonders of science and engineering. However, a device used to replace an amputated arm costs tens of thousands of dollars and must be custommade to an individual veteran, a process that takes months. The backlog in this one area alone is substantial (Corbett 2004). Advocacy groups have highlighted more systemic problems with the Veterans Administration and the level of care

it provides. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, and Disabled American Veterans challenged proposed budget increases in 2005, saying that most improvements in the VA health care budget were coming from increases in veteran prescription copayments and other additional fees. These groups argued that Bush administration proposals failed to keep pace with inflation, rising national medical costs, or the growing demands created by returning troops. They claimed that proposed changes to the 2005 budget would result in 222,000 veterans electing to stop VA treatment because of higher costs (Dyhouse 2005; Aging and Elder Health 2006). The competent and effective management of veterans’ programs has been the subject of public scandal. As the number of discharged service members increased after 2003, the VA appeared wholly unprepared for the burden. The theft of electronic files containing social security numbers and other personal information for millions of veterans prompted Congressional investigations in 2006. As late as the spring of 2007, the VA was criticized for delays of more than six months in processing benefits claims and a backlog of disability claims that ran into the hundreds of thousands (Army 2007). Federal support of veterans’ employment has been equally problematic. A large number of reservists and National Guard troops returning home have experienced significant problems in regaining civilian jobs and bureaucratic inertia when they have requested redress (Holding 2007). At the end of 2007, approximately 16,000 veterans of overseas deployments sought reinstatement under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act

Iraq War Veterans | 243 (USERA). Business owners have claimed that their actions were justified by layoffs in a recessionary economy. Veterans demanding their old jobs back have contested this claim, making the point that they have been denied their rights under existing federal law (Baldas 2007). To date, veterans appear to have the courts on their side. In 2006, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict in favor of a police officer who claimed employer retaliation after he returned from a military deployment. The same year, IBM settled a claim by an army reservist out of court after he threatened to sue for wrongful termination. Michael Thompson, a lawyer who has represented corporations in these cases, notes, ‘‘The soldier is always going to be popular, and if you look at the way USERRA is structured, it’s an entitlement statute, and you are going to have trouble convincing a jury to find against a soldier’’ (Baldas 2007). Although some veterans have regained their old jobs through litigation, private legal remedies are often a last resort and come at the end of a cumbersome and ineffective bureaucratic process. The U.S. Department of Labor has been notoriously slow to address claims made by veterans. Through its Office of Special Council, the Labor Department examined a total of only 55 cases between 1998 and 2002. Of these, only one was referred to the Merits System Protection Board, a body designed to adjudicate veterans’ claims (Maier 2004). In the meantime, returning service members have the choice to represent themselves through private lawyers and undergo the arduous emotional and monetary costs of gaining what are their legal rights. Others seek support from veterans’ organizations.

Veterans and Politics The politicization of military issues is not unique to American history. Controversies regarding unsanctioned overseas actions were familiar to Thomas Jefferson, James Polk, or Woodrow Wilson. The same could be said of military service in the age of Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, or Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the current war, however, unhealed controversies left over from the 2000 election and the 24-houra-day news cycle have lent a sharper edge to contemporary partisanship (Leo 2005). Both of the major parties have engaged in a continual war of words and votes since 2003. Rhetoric has focused on a number of hot button issues: the propriety of troop withdrawals, casualties, and veterans’ medical care. Congressional voting records have not always matched public sentiments (Sorrells and Allen 2003, 2459–2461; Caplan 2007; Weisskopf 2007). More noticeable in the fray are the voices of newly retired military officers as well as the active military. Unlike senior commanders of a previous era who saw political involvement as a strict taboo, the current crop of former generals has readily and publicly embraced candidates across the political spectrum. During the 2006 Congressional campaign season, numerous recently retired senior army generals openly called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, which was forthcoming. In March 2008, then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama staged a publicity event where he appeared with a cohort of nine retired generals and admirals who had endorsed his campaign (Dreazen 2008; Cloud and Schmitt 2006).

244 |

Iraq War Veterans

Senior officers’ activism has been mirrored by recently discharged service members who organized groups such Iraq Veterans Against the War (Enders 2007; Quindlen 2007; Goodman 2004). Active duty enlisted personnel have also readily expressed their political views online and as part of the normal news. Clearly, at all levels of the military chain of command, the membrane separating civil-military affairs has been breached if not permanently eliminated. Increasing numbers of veterans have decided to move directly into politics in recent years. Military service has been a traditional asset to American political campaigns. However, after the end of the Cold War and the election of Bill Clinton, veterans’ status appeared to have declined in importance as a public litmus test of leadership. It regained that perch after 9/11 as both parties, but particularly Democrats, sought to win constituents by projecting a tougher stance on national security issues. Both parties also ran former service members in an attempt to garner votes on the controversial veterans’ issues such as benefits and medical care (Wolffe et al. 2005). In 2006, Democrat and Republic Party managers submitted a seemingly formidable list of candidates drawn from the Iraq War. Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee wounded while piloting a UH60 Blackhawk, ran as a Democrat for Henry Hyde’s vacated seat in Illinois. Patrick Murphy, a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division who served in Iraq, competed in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional district against Republican incumbent Mike Fitzpatrick. Van Taylor, a former Marine combat veteran ran as a Republican challenger to an eight-term Democrat incumbent in Texas (Gustafson 2006).

The outcome of midterm elections was mixed at best. Murphy won his contest in Pennsylvania. However, both Duckworth and Taylor were defeated by their respective opponents. Taylor lost by 18 percent in a Democrat landslide for his opponent (Gillman 2006). Moreover, there has been no sea change in the actual number of veterans in Congress. Their proportion remains small at approximately onequarter of the membership, as opposed to about half of all Congressmen immediately after World War II. In the presidential race of 2008, veteran John McCain, who pledged to continue the Iraq War as long as necessary, was defeated by non-veteran Barack Obama, who was opposed to the war. This suggests being a veteran was less important politically than candidates’ stances on the issues—such as war and the economy. (See also Politics, Veterans in.)

Iraq Veterans’ Associations Although most Iraq veterans who join associations are joining the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, there are two organizations exclusively for veterans of the recent conflicts in the Middle East: The Iraq War Veterans Organization (www.iraqwarveterans.org) and The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.iava.org), which offer similar services as the senior veterans’ organization. Michael D. Gambone See also Anti-War Veterans Associations; Afghan War Veterans; Women Veterans, World War I to the Present

Further Reading Aging & Elder Health Week. ‘‘Health Costs: AMVETS Predicts a $1B Shortfall in the 2007 VA Budget’’ (March 12, 2006): 58.

Iraq War Veterans | 245 Angus Reid Global Monitor. ‘‘Troops Committed War Crimes, Say Americans,’’ June 18, 2006. www.angus-reid.com. Angus Reid Global Monitor. ‘‘Most Americans Still Upset about Iraq Invasion,’’ March 8, 2008. www.angus-reid.com. Army. ‘‘VA Secretary Resigns’’ 57 (September 2007): 8. Auster, Albert. ‘‘Saving Private Ryan and American Triumphalism.’’ Journal of Popular Film & Television 30 (Summer 2002): 98–105. Bailey, Beth. ‘‘The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-Volunteer Force.’’ The Journal of American History 94 (June 2007): 47–74. Baldas, Tresa. ‘‘Returning Vets Suing to Get Their Jobs Back.’’ The National Law Journal 21 (December 21, 2007): 4. Boot, Max. The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 2002, Buzzell, Colby. ‘‘The Best Years of Our Lives.’’ Esquire 145 (March 2006): 206–15. Caplan Paula J. ‘‘Vets Aren’t Crazy—War Is.’’ Tikkun 22 (September/October 2007): 44–49. Cloud, David S., and Eric Schmitt. ‘‘More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld’s Resignation.’’ New York Times, April 14 2006. Commonweal. ‘‘Torture’s Enablers’’ 134 (November 9, 2007): 5. Corbett, Sara. ‘‘The Permanent Scars of Iraq.’’ New York Times Magazine, February 15, 2004: 37–38. Dreazen, Yochi J., ‘‘When Generals Wage Politics: Commanders’ Roles in Campaign Stir Debate about Boundaries.’’ Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2008. Dyhouse Tim. ‘‘22,000 Troops Discharged with ‘Personality Disorders’,’’ Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine 95 (September 2007): 10. Dyhouse, Tim. ‘‘VFW Greatly Disappointed in VA Budget Proposal.’’ Veterans of

Foreign Wars Magazine 92 (April 2005): 12–13. Enders, David. ‘‘Iraq Vets Speak Out.’’ Progressive 71 (October 2007): 20. Fahim, Kareem. ‘‘Veteran Town.’’ The Village Voice 50 (January 19–25, 2005): 28, 30. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Military Personnel: Reporting Additional Servicemember Demographics Could Enhance Congressional Oversight. Washington, DC: GAO, September 2005. GAO-05-952. www.gao.gov/new.items/ d05952.pdf. Gillman, Todd J. ‘‘Edwards’ Record a Tough Defense Against Vet’s Challenge.’’ Dallas Morning News, April 2, 2006. www.dallasnews.com (accessed March 25, 2008). Gitelson Maxwell. ‘‘The Role of the Community in Relation to the Emotional Needs of the Returning Soldier.’’ The Social Science Review 19 (March 1945): 93–96. Goodman, David. ‘‘Breaking Ranks.’’ Mother Jones 29 (November/December 2004): 48–55. Grossman, Lev. ‘‘The Army’s Killer App.’’ Time 165 (February 28, 2005): 43–44. Gustafson, Erik K. ‘‘Iraq Vets Take On Washington.’’ Sojourners Magazine 35 (September/October 2006): 8. Hedges, Chris, and Laila al-Arian. ‘‘The Other War.’’ The Nation 285 (July 30– August 6, 2007): 11–31. Heffernan, Tim, ‘‘Ten Numbers on the State of Iraq War Veterans.’’ Esquire 145 (March 2006): 212–13. Hemingway, Al. ‘‘Gray-Haired Warriors: Vietnam Veterans in Iraq.’’ Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine 92 (April 2005): 22. Hentoff, Nat. ‘‘Waterboarding the White House.’’ The Village Voice 53 (January 9– 15, 2008): 18. Holding, Reynolds. ‘‘The Enemy at Home.’’ Time 169 (June 25, 2007): 52.

246 |

Iwo Jima Memorial

Jensen, Ron. ‘‘Beyond the Yellow Ribbon.’’ National Guard 62 (January 2008): 22–25. Kane, John. ‘‘American Values or Human Rights? U.S. Foreign Policy and the Fractured Myth of Virtuous Power.’’ Presidential Studies Quarterly 33 (December 2003): 772. Kelly James F. ‘‘Draft Debate Resurfaces.’’ U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133 (January 2007): 12. Leo, John. ‘‘Fun With Numbers.’’ U.S. News & World Report 139 (August 1, 2005): 62. Lugo, William. ‘‘Violent Video Games to Recruit American Youth.’’ Reclaiming Children & Youth 15 (Spring 2006): 11–14. Maier, Timothy W. ‘‘Pink Slips Greet Returning Soldiers.’’ Insight on the News 20 (January 6–January 19, 2004): 26–27. Mockenhaupt, Brian. ‘‘The Waiting.’’ New York Times Magazine, March 12, 2006: 78. Morrison, James. ‘‘The Thin Red Line.’’ Film Quarterly 53 (Fall 1999): 35–38. Moses, Michael Valdez. ‘‘Virtual Warriors.’’ Reason 33 (January 2002): 54–61. Multi-National Force—Iraq. www.youtube.com/mnfiraq. National Guard. ‘‘VA Expands Services for Guard Combat Veterans’’ 59 (July 2005): 18. Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007: Department of Veterans Affairs. www .whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/ veterans.html (accessed March 17, 2008). O’Hanlon, Michael E., and Jason H. Campbell. Iraq Index: Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in PostSaddam Iraq. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008). Quindlen, Anna. ‘‘Dissenters in Uniform.’’ Newsweek 150 (25 June 2007): 62. Saad, Lydia. ‘‘Republicans and Democrats Disagree on War, but Support Troops.’’ Gallup News Service, September 2006. www.gallup.com. Sorrells, Niels S., and Jonathan Allen, ‘‘Veterans Look for Sympathy in Senate

After Bipartisan Betrayal in House.’’ Congressional Quarterly, October 4, 2003. Thompson, Nancy. ‘‘War Stories in the Classroom.’’ The Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (July 21, 2006): B5. Weisskopf, Michael. ‘‘The Meaning of Walter Reed.’’ Time 169 (19 March 2007): 100. Williams, Kayla. Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. Wolffe, Richard, Jonathan Darman, and Holly Bailey. ‘‘The Vet Strategy.’’ Newsweek, December 5, 2005: 30–33.

IWO JIMA MEMORIAL On November 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicated what is officially the Marine Corps War Memorial, better known as the Iwo Jima Memorial, outside the gates of the Arlington National Cemetery. The monument of five marines and one navy corpsman raising the flag on February 23, 1945, was sculpted by Felix de Weldon and based on a Pulitzer-Prize-winning photograph of the second flag raising on the island, which was staged by Joe Rosenthal and taken several hours after the first flag was erected in the heat of combat. That this was a staged, rather than the original, flag raising was not stressed during the ceremonies: three of the four marines who raised the first small flag over Iwo Jima—Harold Schrier, H. O. Hansen, and James Mitchell and the photographer who caught it, Lou Lowery, were present at the dedication. The fourth, Sergeant Ernst Thomas, was killed on the island ten days later: the raising of the flag did not mean the end of the battle or the capture of the island; it was raised to inspire marines still in combat that the enemy’s main defensive position had been taken.

Iwo Jima Memorial Over 6,000 marines, more than onethird of all those killed in the Pacific, died on the island, and over 20,000 were wounded in a battle that went on until March 26. Lowery’s photograph did not capture the triumphant, dramatic image of the battle the Marine Corps and the American public wanted to remember. With a sense of irony, Rosenthal sent Lowery a copy of his photo inscribed, ‘‘To Lou Lowery, who got there first.—a helluva marine and a great guy, from lucky Joe Rosenthal (Marling and Wetenhal, frontispiece.) As sculptor de Weldon put it, the outstretched hands of he men stood for America’s help to the suffering

| 247

people of the world, their outstretched hands striving for the blessings of higher power, and the group symbolizing a united nation in pursuit of a single goal (Marling and Wetenhal 1991, 16). Journalists delighted in describing the monumentality of the state as well: over a hundred tons of bronze in 108 pieces went into the monument in which the men’s thumbs were the size of arms. The huge sculpture reflected American military might and the image of a strong, heroic, united nation that politicians of both parties hoped would be the reality following the war. Once Rosenthal’s photograph was displayed in newspapers all over America, it

Soldiers reenact the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, an image made famous by AP photographer Joe Rosenthal, during a Memorial Day parade, the first after a 20-year hiatus, along Chicago’s Michigan Avenue, 1998. [AP Photo/ Beth A. Keiser]

248 |

Iwo Jima Memorial

received tremendous praise and the Pulitzer Prize. On the island of Iwo Jima itself, Seabee Waldron T. Rich executed a sculpture based on the photograph on the sides of a cliff. Rosenthal’s 4-F draft deferment was upgraded to 2-A (doing essential war work). A stamp of the photograph appeared in July. President Roosevelt insisted the six men come home. They included the child of immigrants, a Native American, and men from the Midwest, the Plains, and the East, a representative sample of America, The six were detailed to the United States shortly after the battle and toured the country, along with the flag, selling war bonds. Over a million posters depicting the photograph were placed in factories, homes, and railroad stations, and the Marine Corps used it for a recruiting poster. Replicas of the statue were displayed at bond rallies to encourage purchasers in Times Square and appeared on a float at the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, California, in 1946. Copies the size of paperweights were manufactured to be placed on desks and in curio cabinets. In 1949, the original flag was sent to the marine base, Camp Pendleton, California, for the filming of The Sands of Iwo Jima starring John Wayne. Wayne was nominated for a Best Actor

Academy Award and for the first time became the top box office attraction in pictures thanks to this film. Three of the marines in the photographed appeared to raise the flag in the movie. Ira Hayes, a private and Pima Indian, who only arrived on Iwo Jima in time to be included in the second, staged photograph, did not want to be assigned to tour the country and publicize the event. He was returned to active duty in the Pacific when he was found drunk before an important rally. Hayes subsequently was jailed in Chicago, sent to a sanitarium, released, and arrested again in Los Angeles: the official report of the dedication listed him, however, as an employee of the Indian Bureau so as not to spoil the image of the day. He died three months after the monument’s dedication and is buried in Arlington Cemetery. William Pencak See also American Indian Veterans, Individuals; World War II Veterans

Further Reading Marling, Karal Ann, and John Wetenhal. Iwo Jima: Monuments, Memories, and the American Hero. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

J draft of 1940 were retained in service. But in 1943, when the government announced it would accept Nisei volunteers, eligible men enlisted. Despite food shortages, loss of nearly all their property, and humiliation at the camps, Japanese Americans jumped at the chance to prove their loyalty. Future senator from Hawaii and war hero Daniel Inouye described how he and over a thousand men literally ran to the draft board on the first day they could enlist. In 1944, the government reinstated the draft for Nisei Americans. Hawaiian Nisei formed the 100th Infantry Battalion while those on the mainland became the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. They later merged and fought in both the European and Pacific theaters. Of 36,000 men, over 18,000 earned decorations for bravery and 8 presidential unit citations, making it the most decorated unit in American history. A greater proportion of Japanese American served than members of any other ethnic group although most were not drafted. More than 700 were killed and

JAPANESE AMERICAN VETERANS The Japanese experience of World War II was starkly different on Hawaii than on the mainland. Only about 1,500 Japanese Americans on Hawaii were interned as enemy aliens, in part because JapaneseAmericans constituted over a third of the island’s population and were essential for both defense and providing food and services, but also in part because they were well integrated into the island’s population. On the mainland, where many Nisei (Japanese Americans) were small farmers who lived apart from the white population, nearly all 110,000 were interned in camps although 70,000 were American citizens and supposedly entitled to all the civil rights of any citizen. Japanese Americans were classified as enemy aliens by the War Department and exempted from the draft as of February 1942, although those who had been drafted already with the first peacetime 249

250 |

Japanese American Veterans

Wounded veteran Sgt.Yeichi Kuwayama, fourth from right, presents a check to President Truman in 1945 for a memorial to the late President Roosevelt. Present at the ceremony are left to right, Earl Finch of the War Relocation Authority; PFC George M. Tsujimoto, PFC Terumi Kato, President Truman, Sgt. Kuwayam, Secretary of Interior Harold L. Ickes, PFC Jesse Hirata, and Dillon Myer. The soldiers had all been wounded fighting in Italy and Europe. [AP Photo]

9,500 wounded, earning the 100th Infantry the nickname of the ‘‘Purple Heart Battalion.’’ Their most famous mission was to fight their way through the German lines and rescue the ‘‘Lost Battalion’’ in France. Future Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye lost an arm when he was hit by a German grenade that he then threw back. Yet the battalion received only one medal of honor during the war. In 2000, when President Clinton upgraded 20 of the 47 Distinguished Service Crosses to that level, Inouye and six other men were still alive to receive the nation’s highest award.

The 442nd’s sterling performance began to change attitudes towards the interned Japanese Americans at home. President Truman himself greeted the returning regiment at the White House on July 15, 1946. ‘‘You fought for the free nations of the world . . . . You fought not only the enemy, you fought prejudice, and you have won. Keep up that fight, and continue to win—to make this great Republic stand for just what the Constitution says it stands for: ‘the welfare of all the people, all the time’ ’’ (Duus 1983, 232). The Office of War Information also praised Japanese

Japanese American Veterans American soldiers in an effort to reduce racism in American society. Generals Mark Clark and Joseph Stillwell, who had commanded the troops in Italy and the Pacific, made speeches urging white Americans to appreciate the Japanese Americans’ heroism. Nevertheless, upon return and release of their families from internment camps, many found their houses burned or vandalized and their possessions stolen by white Americans. Employers would not give them jobs or serve them in restaurants and shops, and restrictive real estate covenants prevented them from obtaining mortgages in desirable neighborhoods. National authorities acted to combat local prejudice. In the most famous incident, the Masuda family near Santa Ana, California, was harassed and received death threats when they attempted to return home after the war, even though a son who had won a Distinguished Service Cross was still in the army. General Stilwell, in a nationally publicized ceremony, pinned that son’s decoration on his mother. When an American Legion post in Hood, Oregon, attempted to remove the names of Japanese Americans from the honor roll in front of city hall, over 12,000 Legion posts protested. One main result of the war was the attempt by the War Relocation Authority and the Nisei themselves to integrate into the mainstream of American society. They had little to go back to, and even before the war were more highly educated than the average American. The postwar era saw a shift to the East Coast and to clerical, sales, technical, and professional jobs with the aid of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, popularly known as the GI Bill. Inouye, along with veterans ‘‘Spark’’ Matsunaga and

| 251

Masato Doi, used their service as springboards for their political careers and to help the Democratic Party become the majority in Hawaii. In 1968, Inouye and Matsunaga sponsored a bill that abolished the Emergency Detention Law so that similar camps could never exist in the United States. One reason those accused of participating in the 9/11 World Trade Center bombings and other suspected terrorists were detained at Guanatanamo in Cuba was because this law would have been difficult to circumvent if they were held in the U.S. proper. Japanese veterans began organizing to fight for their rights soon after the war. The 442nd Veterans Club formed in February 1946, the Nisei Veterans Committee a month later. The first of many all-Nisei Veterans of Foreign Wars posts was established in Sacramento, California, the following year; along with the American Legion, other all Japanese American posts appeared in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Detroit, Denver, Portland, Chicago, Cleveland, and Minneapolis. Today, the Japanese American Veterans Association, composed of Japanese American veterans of World War II and subsequent conflicts, works to perpetuate the memory of their contributions, assist veterans and their families, and promote links with other veterans’ organizations to lobby for mutual interests. The Nisei Veterans Committee, the most important all-Nisei veterans’ organization, made assimilation into mainstream American society its goal. It organized youth baseball, basketball, and football leagues to play white and African American teams. It sponsored blood drives, camps, and other public services to show continued patriotism. Many veterans also joined the Japanese

252 |

Jewish Veterans

American Citizens League, which had challenged the internment camps in the courts as unconstitutional during the war, and then formed the AntiDiscrimination Committee to protest continued prejudice after the war. For instance, their lobbying incorporated a measure into the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act of 1952 that allowed Issei (Japanese immigrants) to become citizens. They continued to fight for compensation for property confiscated during the war, although a significant victory did not occur until 1988, when the Civil Liberties Act allotted $20,000 to each interned person. By 1999, when the payments concluded, $1.6 billion had been paid to over 82,000 people. The National Japanese American Memorial to Patriotism During World War II was dedicated in 2000. It is located in Washington, DC, at the intersection of Louisiana and New Jersey Avenues and D Street NW. The beautiful sculpture by Nina Akamu depicts two cranes confined by barbed wire trying to break free: cranes are Japanese symbols of peace and long life. Japanese cherry trees, a bell, and a pool of water with stones are present to represent Japanese culture while pink walls listing the names of the internment camps partially enclose the memorial. Statements apologizing for the internments and quotations from Japanese American writers appear on the memorial as well. William Pencak

Further Reading Duus, Masayo Umezawa. Unlikely Liberators: The Men of the 100th and 442nd. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983.

Japanese American Veterans Association. www.javadc.org. Phillips, Adam. ‘‘Japanese American WWII Soldiers Fought Battles at Home and Abroad.’’ IMDiversity.com website, www .imdiversity.com/villages/asian/history _heritage/voa_nisei_soldiers_0507.asp.

JEWISH VETERANS Jews have served with distinction in the American armed forces from the beginning. In fact, the first recorded political protest by a Jew in the history of what became the United States occurred when Asser Levy petitioned for the right to serve in the militia of Dutch New Amsterdam in 1657 rather than pay a fine to avoid service. Colonel Solomon Bush was the highestranking Jew in the Continental Army during the Revolution, and Majors Benjamin Nones and Francis Salvador distinguished themselves for heroism in Georgia and South Carolina. Salvador was scalped by Indians in 1775, the first Jewish casualty of the war. Uriah Phillips Levy, the first Jew to command an American fleet (on the Mediterranean in 1859 and 1860) was instrumental in abolishing flogging in the navy, although his hot temper earned him six court-martials and two courts of inquiry into his conduct, still a record, all of which cleared him, and which were at least in part the result of anti-Semitism. Probably about 5,000 Jews served in the Union and 1,000 in the Confederate forces during the Civil War out of a total male population of perhaps 30,000. (The number is impossible to establish with any precision as many people of Jewish ancestry did not or, as the Jewish community was still forming, could not attend regular worship. Others were not religious or had converted to Christianity.) Seven Jewish Union soldiers won the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Civil

Jewish Veterans War. The Confederate Monument at Arlington National Cemetery was sculpted by Moses Ezekiel, who as a 17-year-old cadet at the Virginia Military Institute marched out with his classmates to fight at the Battle of New Market in 1864. Yet the 1890s marked a new height of anti-immigration and especially antiJewish sentiment in the nation, as eastern Europeans fleeing persecution and poverty flocked to the New World. Charges began to appear that no Jews had fought in the Civil War, they were all too concerned with profiting off the misfortunes of their fellows. Mark Twain was the most famous author who repeated these charges, though he did not hesitate to apologize once they were proven false. In response, in 1896 78 Jews formed the Hebrew Union Veterans, the oldest Jewish veterans’ group in the United States: the same year, Simon Wolf published The American Jew as Soldier, Patriot, and Citizen, listing every American Jew he could find who had served in the military. Two years later, Jewish veterans of the Spanish-American War formed the Junior Hebrew War Veterans, which soon changed its name to the Hebrew Veterans of the War with Spain, of which President Theodore Roosevelt was proud to be an honorary member. In 1902, at the Salem Field Jewish Cemetery in Brooklyn, they erected the first monument in the nation to Jewish veterans. It reads, ‘‘To the Memory of the Soldiers of the Hebrew Faith, Who Responded to the Call of Their Country and Gave Their Lives for Its Salvation During the Dark Days of Its Need So That the Nation Might Live.’’ Centered in New York, the organization lobbied and succeeded in eliminating restrictions on Jews serving in the New York National Guard.

| 253

The U.S. Army conferred 723 citations for valor on Jews during World War I, at the end of which the two Jewish groups, with only about 200 members between them, merged in 1922 (it took its current name, Jewish War Veterans of the United States, in 1927) as it eagerly awaited new recruits from the American Expeditionary Force. Many of the returning Jewish veterans also joined the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. The association published The Jewish Veteran—its magazine, which is now published five times a year—and engaged in activities such as alerting veterans to the presence of anti-Semitism at home and abroad, opposing the new immigration law which prevented immigrant Jewish veterans from being reunited with their families unless they returned to Europe, and supporting poor Jews abroad and in Palestine. The Jewish War Veterans (JWV) were instrumental in persuading the War Department to allow Stars of David to be placed on graves in veterans’ cemeteries. During the thirties, Jewish veterans were far in advance of others in protesting the Nazis at home and abroad: they led a boycott of German imports and the 1936 Berlin Olympics and they urged all Americans to join them; some New York City veterans broke up a German Bund rally in 1938, while others gathered information on American Nazis and furnished it to the FBI. This information led to the arrest and conviction of Fritz Kuhn, head of the Bund. The Jewish War Veterans also worked tirelessly, but without success, to seek legislation to give preferential consideration to families and immediate relatives of veterans for immigration to the United States.

254 |

Jewish War Veterans of America

During World War II, over half a million Jews served in the armed forces, 4 percent of the total whereas they constituted 3 percent of the population. For the first time, Jews became generals (18) and admirals (4). Admiral Hyman Rickover was the highest-ranking and most famous Jewish serviceman who served in the war. Two other Jews who served were General Mark Clark, who later became supreme commander of the UN forces in Korea at the end of that war, and Admiral Jeremy Borda, future supreme commander of NATO. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Jewish War Veterans began its ‘‘Emergency Program for Victory,’’ which called for civilians to support the war effort. To fulfill this commitment, JWV and its National Ladies Auxiliary sold war bonds exceeding $250 million. They purchased seven fighter planes and named the first ‘‘The Jewish War Veteran’’ and the second ‘‘The Star of David.’’ The JWV also arranged for the U.S. Navy to commission several ships in honor of Jewish naval heroes, the first being Uriah P. Levy. Other efforts included support for the USO, humanitarian aid, supporting federal legislation to ban unfair hiring practices in the defense industry, and fund-raising activities. With the end of the war, the JWV

became involved with problems of the returning veterans, as well as foreign policy issues such as the effects of the Holocaust in Europe and the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine. During the Cold War, efforts were made to help Jews in Soviet Russia, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), and the civil rights movement, notably the integration of the armed forces. As late as 2008 the JWV has had to protest harassment of Jewish cadets at the military academies by Christian evangelicals and the placement of large crosses (outside of Christian chapels) on military bases by the commander’s order. John Stoll

Further Reading Jewish War Veterans of America. www.jwv.org. Mosesson, Gloria R. The Jewish War Veterans Story. Washington, DC: Jewish War Veterans of America, 1971.

JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF AMERICA See Jewish Veterans

K concerning the repatriation of prisoners after the war had essentially stalled at the current boundary of North and South Korea. The Department of Defense, journalists, and the public immediately began to question the loyalty of the POWs when they first returned in the spring of 1953. Men were presumed guilty: for instance, Paul Schnur of San Francisco was accused because he managed property for a former Progressive Party leader and his father was a leader in the movement to free Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who had been accused of being Soviet spies. Emaciated men who had just been released were forced to face reporters’ questions of whether they had turned Communist almost immediately after arriving in the states with no psychological counseling. Newspapers spread stories about their lack of heroism and ability, such as the New York Times: the Korean veteran ‘‘is a different breed from his older brother who came back from World War II, the product of special times and a very special war . . . .

KOREAN WAR VETERANS During the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 until 1953, 1.8 million Americans served in the actual theater of the war. Nearly 37,000 died and over 92,000 were wounded. The Korean veterans’ major problem is that they were blamed for losing the first war in American history. As over two-thirds of more than 100,000 Chinese and North Korean prisoners captured did not want to return home, the Chinese hoped to force a large number of American prisoners of war into likewise refusing to come home so their own regime would not appear more oppressive. Much of the controversy surrounding the war’s outcome fell on the 7,140 prisoners of war who were taken by the Red Chinese and North Koreans. Interred under atrocious conditions in which many were tortured and over 2,700 died, some of them listened to lectures on Communism in the hope of relieving boredom, getting warm, or obtaining better treatment. Peace talks dragged on for over two years 255

256 |

Korean War Veterans

The new veterans are disquieting machine-like products of their special times . . . There seems to be an almost robot-like disinterest about him that is in disturbing contrast to the assertive individualism of the World War II soldier’’ (Severo and Milford 1989, 327). Yet such observations obscured the fact that nearly a million World War II veterans were recalled during the Korean War, and over 300,000 were actually sent to Korea. Ultimately, the propaganda that really damaged Korean veterans, both their own self-image and that of the public’s, was that of the United States rather than the Red Chinese government. Extreme anti-Communists such as Senator Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, collectively accused them of disloyalty. It turned out there was almost no substance to the charges. A total of

565 of the 4,428 released POWs were interrogated by the U.S. Army as to their Communist leadings; 192 were charged, but only 6 convicted of violations of military conduct. But many returned prisoners were forced by the Army to publicly affirm their loyalty, and to add insult to injury were denied the $2.50 per day they should have received for up to almost two years in captivity. Twenty-one soldiers did refuse to return home and remained in China. The most extreme case of persecuting a veteran at the time involved James Kutcher, who had lost both his legs below the knees in World War II. He was employed after the war at a veterans’ hospital in his home city of Newark, New Jersey, but fired in 1948 for ‘‘disloyalty’’ as he had been a member of the Communist Party, although it had expelled him

Two wreaths stand in front of Korean War Memorial statues on June 25, 2000, on the National Mall in Washington, as part of the 50th anniversary ceremonies marking the start of the Korean War. [AP Photo/Heesoon Yim]

Korean War Veterans because he favored Leon Trotsky’s philosophy and opposed Stalin. At the same time his parents were removed from Newark Public Housing. Seven years later, the Veterans Administration also revoked his disability pension. He did get it back, however, along with seven years’ pay for the years he was fired, when Attorney Joseph Rauh of the American Civil Liberties Union pressed the Veterans Administration to charge him with some specific illegal act. The army continued to keep files on many veterans as suspected subversives, however, and passed them on to the FBI. The charges persisted. In 1956, the U.S. Army sent Major William Erwin Mayer on a well-publicized lecture tour of the nation. With no evidence, he charged that one-third of all the Korean POWs had succumbed to Communist brainwashing without coercion or torture. ‘‘The behavior of too many of our soldiers in prison fell far short of the historical standards of honor, character, loyalty, courage, and personal integrity,’’ he insisted (Severo and Milford 1989, 335). Over 600,000 copies of his talk were distributed. Educators and intellectuals joined conservative congressmen and military figures in blaming the Korean War’s generation for a lack of moral fibre and patriotism. Dr. Max Rafferty, California school superintendent and subsequently U.S. senator, warned that the ‘‘vanishing species—the American patriot’’ was being supplanted by ‘‘booted, sideburned, ducktailed, unwashed, leatherjacketed slobs’’ prone to the propaganda of ‘‘the phony sophisticates who clutter up our colleges.’’ Left-wing feminist Betty Friedan also found the new generation ‘‘apathetic, dependent, infantile, purposeless’’ thanks to an abundance of

| 257

overprotective mothers (Severo and Milford 1989, 327). Serious enquiries into the troops and POWs went unheeded. After an extensive study of Korean POWs records, Albert Biderman of the University of Chicago concluded that American prisoners had behaved similarly to those of previous wars. They did in fact try to escape rather than remain passive victims despite the fact that they could have been easily recognized in an Asiatic society. In 1957, director Stanley Kubrick filmed Paths of Glory, which implicitly criticized the scapegoating of American troops by their own military leaders. The film shows three soldiers singled out at random and shot for cowardice by the French in World War I, a practice they resorted to in order to encourage soldiers not to flinch from suicidal frontal attacks on the Germans. At the same time the U.S. Army was criticizing both the Chinese Communists for torturing Americans and Americans for not standing up to it, it was also irreparably harming its own men. Thousands of soldiers were given the hallucinogenic drug LSD in a series of experiments to which they did not consent: the Supreme Court later ruled they could not collect damages from the government. The Army admitted over a quarter-million veterans were exposed at close range to nuclear tests between 1945 and 1963, leading to premature deaths from cancer. Cancer also shortened the average life expectancy of Korean as well as World War II veterans because troops were given free cigarettes, grown and manufactured by tobacco workers who received draft deferments because they worked in an ‘‘essential’’ industry. Like their World War II counterparts, Korean War era veterans (not just those

258 |

Korean War Veterans

Korean War Veteran Louis Valverde, from Long Island, NY, reaches out to touch the wall of the Korean War Memorial at the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Ceremony, July 27, 2003. [AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais]

who fought, but also those who served anywhere during the war years) received their equivalent of the GI Bill, more formally known as the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 (see also Servicemen’s Readjustment Act). In common with the 1944 bill, it offered educational and training benefits, as well as home, farm, and business loans. But scandals had arisen in the late forties as some schools had overcharged veterans and the government for their education. As a result, instead of four years’ free tuition plus living expenses, Korean War veterans only received $110 a month (more if they had dependents) out of which they had to pay tuition and living expenses. Further, the payments ran out after 36 months or 1.5 months for each month of military service, whichever was less. Veterans who were unemployed on their return were also compensated with funds voted by

their home state. But given the negative attitude toward the Korean War, the Veterans Administration and hospital also suffered budget cuts in the 1950s. Still, the Korean War veterans benefited greatly from their postwar benefits. Nearly 2,400,000 out of 5,500,000 took advantage of one of the programs: over a million went to college, 860,000 to trade or technical schools, 223,000 received on-the-job training, and 95,000 enrolled in agricultural training programs. Over 1.8 million veterans used loans underwritten by the Veterans Administration totaling over $32 billion to buy homes, businesses, and farms. Nearly 79,000 disabled veterans obtained new jobs through Veterans Administration Rehabilitation programs. In general, Korean War veterans who survived to 1999 were better off than men who were not veterans: they had an average family income of $38,000

Korean War Veterans (as opposed to $31,000) and almost half (as opposed to a third) had some college education. Appreciation for the sacrifices of Korean War veterans began to increase after the Vietnam Memorial was dedicated in Washington, DC, in 1982. The Korean War Veterans Association was chartered in 1985. Congress authorized construction of a Korean War Veterans Memorial in 1986 and it was completed in 1995 (see Appendix 1, Washington, DC). William Pencak See also African American Veterans, Korean War

Further Reading Blair, Clay. The Forgotten War: American in Korea, 1950–1953. New York: Times Books, 1987. Korean War Veterans Association, Inc. www.kwva.org. Severo, Richard, and Lewis Milford. The Wages of War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Weintraub, Stanley. ‘‘How to Remember the Forgotten War.’’ American Heritage 51 (May/June 2000): 100–106.

| 259

This page intentionally left blank

L universities including Yale University, Harvard Medical School, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. Lifton’s psychohistory has focused on individuals—such as the survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima, Vietnam veterans, Nazi doctors, and apocalyptic terrorist cults—placed in extreme situations. Following this theme in Home from the War, Lifton examines the ‘‘socialized warrior,’’ focusing on how the special circumstances of Vietnam brought about ‘‘advanced states of brutalization and psychic numbing, and made massacres like My Lai inevitable’’ (Lifton 2005, 19, 17). According to Lifton, American soldiers encountered a combat environment for which they were completely unprepared. Many veterans later recalled in the ‘‘rap groups’’ that they could not understand what they were doing. They fought an elusive, often unseen enemy, without any logical measure of progress. Indeed, the only standard of achievement was the number of Vietnamese killed, or ‘‘body count.’’ There seemed to be a

LIFTON, ROBERT JAY (1926–) First published in 1973, Robert Jay Lifton’s Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans Neither Victims Nor Executioners (later resubtitled Learning from Vietnam Veterans) is perhaps the most well-known psychohistorical study of American veterans. Home from the War grew out of Lifton’s involvement with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a group of what he dubbed ‘‘antiwar warriors.’’ Lifton spent more than 150 hours in VVAW ‘‘rap groups,’’ and based much of his project on interviews with about 400 veterans. Lifton was born on May 16, 1926, in Brooklyn, New York. He attended Cornell University and earned his medical degree from New York Medical College in 1948. After being drafted into the U.S. Army, he served as an Air Force psychiatrist in the United States, Japan, and Korea from 1951–1953. He has taught at a number of colleges and 261

262 |

Literature and Veterans

total lack of order, structure, and purpose. Their combat experience offered ‘‘no honorable encounter, no warrior grandeur’’ (38). Lifton describes My Lai as the result of an ‘‘atrocity producing situation.’’ Borrowing from French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, Lifton contends that when advanced industrial societies, such as the United States, carry out counterinsurgency wars against revolutionary guerrillas inseparable from the rest of the population, they often develop Draconian military policies. For the American military such a scenario led to the ‘‘search-and-destroy mission,’’ the ‘‘free-fire zone,’’ and the use of massive firepower and plant defoliants. According to Lifton, these policies lead ‘‘to a compelling internal sequence that constitutes the psychological or experiential dimension of the atrocity-producing situation’’ (41). Yet Lifton argues that many forms of desensitization contributed to My Lai, and the right ingredients meant almost anyone could enter into the ‘‘psychology of slaughter’’ (42). During basic training, new soldiers learned about Vietnamese atrocities, ambushes, and booby-traps from the mouths of Vietnam veterans. These stories helped implant the belief that it was okay to kill indiscriminately. This idea was reinforced by the soldier’s jungle combat experience against an unseen enemy. The deaths of fellow GIs lead many of the men to experience ‘‘survival guilt,’’ rage, and ultimately revenge fantasies. At My Lai, an explosive booby-trap that killed a sergeant led the men to pool these revenge fantasies and form a ‘‘strong psychic image’’ of the murder of unarmed civilians they committed the next day ( 49). Ultimately, Lifton contends that the massacre

allowed the men to overcome their feelings of guilt and impotence and affirm their skill, power, and worth. Home from the War is a foundational work on the psychology of atrocity. It remains relevant as a guide to better understanding what was then called ‘‘post-Vietnam syndrome’’ but is now recognized—thanks in part to Lifton— as post-traumatic stress disorder. In the 2005 edition, Lifton makes the case that much like Vietnam War veterans, Iraq War veterans can recover from the psychological trauma of their war experience through channeling their emotions into political activism. Jeremy K. Saucier

Further Reading Lifton, Robert Jay. Home from the War: Learning from Vietnam Veterans. New York: Other Press, 2005. Lifton, Robert Jay. Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans Neither Victims nor Executioners. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973. Nicosia, Gerald. Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veteran’s Movement. New York: Crown Publishers, 2001.

LITERATURE AND VETERANS Veteran literature is not military history, per se, but works of literature—both fiction and nonfiction—that explore the character and experiences of the military veteran in war as well as in the experiences of his or her return to civilian life. Roughly speaking, these books can also be divided up attitudinally: those that have something positive to say and those that are primarily negative. All the books—regardless of

Literature and Veterans attitude—assume that war is evil and should be avoided if possible. But after that shared premise, there is a divergence. In the more pessimistic works, there is little emphasis on heroism and much emphasis on demythologizing war and the warrior. War is only capable of dehumanizing the individual. The other strain, while accepting the truth about the horrors of war, still celebrates the courage and brotherhood of the veteran.

The American Revolution and the War of 1812 Working chronologically, some of the earliest veteran literature can be found in the nonfiction works of Benson Lossing (1813–1891). Born in New York State, Lossing’s parents were Quakers. He was orphaned at age 11 and began an apprenticeship as a watchmaker and silversmith. In 1835, he began his life as a journalist and sketch artist when he became part owner of the Poughkeepsie Telegraph. He is most famous for his series of The Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Lossing’s method for working was to use the letters and diaries of battle participants, to visit the battle sites, to sketch people and places, and—when possible —to interview veterans or their family members. Because of his books, likenesses of people are available that might not otherwise be. Through his pen sketches, he also captured the look of battlefields before they became radically changed by modern life. In his Civil War book, he introduced photography to the mix, partnering with Mathew Brady. While Lossing may not have been the first writer to use these techniques to assemble a book, his methods have,

| 263

nevertheless, become the template for much nonfiction war writing. Another, more contemporary nonfiction writer of the Revolution, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, is historian David McCullough (1933–). A winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for his biographies, his book 1776 (2007) recounts a crucial year in the Revolutionary War, with particular emphasis on the day-to-day life of the soldier. While more scholarly and focused than Lossing, McCullough nevertheless follows many of Lossing’s methods. McCullough used the diaries of veterans and their family members, visited the battle sites to get a feel for the settings, and immersed himself in the culture of the times. Despite his intense scholarship, McCullough’s books are easily readable and often on the BestSeller List. Charles Royster wrote a scholarly work titled A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775–1783 (1979), for which he won the Francis Parkman Prize of the Organization of American Historians. Unlike most of the nonfiction works described here, Royster’s book is admittedly not narrative in nature but instead analytical. Its importance lies in the fact that it shows the relationship between veterans and the American public at the time of the Revolution. Of an obvious revolutionary bent, the general population was suspicious of a professional army—which Washington’s troops had become by the end of the war. After all, it was in part the power of governments and foreign military against which the American population was rebelling. According to Royster, the army was nevertheless galled by the lack of support

264 |

Literature and Veterans

from the government and the people. It would be years before the military would be perceived as honorable and as necessary for maintaining freedom. Walter Lord (1917–2002) in The Dawn’s Early Light (1994) takes a look at the War of 1812, in particular at the events of 1814 when Washington, DC, was burnt and Baltimore harbor was defended (there is also a more summary sketch of the Battle of New Orleans). This is a war that many of its American participants called the ‘‘second Revolution.’’ In his book, Lord spends a good deal of time discussing politicians and generals and their various motivations; nevertheless, he does (using letters and diaries) focus at times on the average soldier as well as civilian volunteers in the war against the British. One of Lord’s trademarks is that he researches the personal observations of both sides of the conflict. As with Royster, it becomes apparent in this book that the politicians and Americans in general had given little serious thought to the necessity of a professional army.

The Mexican War While there is a good deal of war history written about the Mexican War, there is less written on the veterans themselves. However, one good example of veteran literature for this war is Richard Bruce Winders’s Mr. Polk’s Army. Winders, currently the historian and curator for the Alamo, uses the methodology of many of the best of nonfiction writers whose subject is the soldier in battle. In addition to quotes and summaries from veterans themselves, Winder also includes charts, lists, and contemporary drawings. His chapters focus often

on the men themselves, subdividing the material into sections on the regulars, the volunteers, and on everyday training and living. His notes and bibliography are voluminous.

The Civil War One of the most famous nonfiction writers about the Civil War is Bruce Catton (1899–1978). Born in Petoskey, Michigan, Catton was a prolific writer (13 books on the Civil War alone), but his most read works are those that make up the Army of the Potomac trilogy: Mr. Lincoln’s Army (1951), Glory Road (1952), and A Stillness at Appomattox (1953). This last book won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. And like David McCullough, Catton was a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As a boy, Catton listened to the stories of Civil War veterans and in his books— as Lossing did—he used the diaries and letters of veterans to put the reader into the mind and experience of the average soldier as well as that of the officers. He also added a scholar’s penchant for factual exactness. Another well-known nonfiction writer about the Civil War is Shelby Foote (1916–2005). Born in Greenville, Mississippi, Foote served in World War II and started his writing career as a novelist. Like Catton, he has a trilogy of books, The Civil War: A Narrative, which includes Fort Sumter to Perrysville (1958), Fredericksburg to Meridian (1963), and Red River to Appomattox (1974). Foote spent 20 years writing the trilogy and like all of the best writers about veterans he used diaries and letters to create his narrative. In addition, he often

Literature and Veterans camped out at battle sites just to get a feel for these places. His trilogy is over a million words long—all of which he wrote by hand with an old-fashioned dip pen. Of the memoir writers from the war, a standout is John Beatty (1828–1914). Born near Sandusky, Ohio, Beatty was a member of the Third Ohio Volunteer Infantry. Starting out as a private, he was soon promoted to captain, then lieutenant colonel, and finally to general. His war diary was first published in 1879 as Citizen Soldier and today it is available as Memoirs of a Volunteer: 1861–1863 (1946). After all of the battles, he ends the book noting the nobility of man. But he also notes, throughout the book, the incompetence and politics of some of his fellow officers (those willing to do most anything for advancement). On the fiction side, there is the recent National Book Award novel Cold Mountain (1997) by Charles Frazier. Frazier was born in 1950 in Asheville, North Carolina. His book is roughly modeled after the life of his great, great uncle who, like the main character in the novel, was a Confederate soldier who was wounded in the Civil War and who deserted the hospital where he was convalescing. The novel shows the realities of life in a Civil War hospital as well as the anguish of innocent people caught up in a war that had very little to do with them. Inman, the main character, is trapped in the dementia and cruelty of a false Confederate patriotism. In a more universal sense, the book is about the difficulties in and the desires associated with returning home from war—difficulties and desires of both the soldier and the family left behind. One of the most read novels about the Civil War is Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage (1895). Crane (1871– 1900) was born in Newark, New Jersey.

| 265

Never having experienced war himself when this book was written, Crane’s novel is nevertheless a remarkable psychological study of the soldier at war as well as a philosophical study of the nature of courage. This is one of the first and best of the non-romantic presentations of war in American fiction.

The Spanish-American War The significant books about SpanishAmerican War veterans are nonfiction, in particular the memoir of Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) and the collected journalism of Stephen Crane. The Rough Riders (1899) is Roosevelt’s record of his experiences as an officer (second in command) in the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment during the Spanish-American War. While controversy swells around the book (some saying Roosevelt puts himself too much at the center of the glory), Roosevelt actually does a good job of recreating the battles and giving credit to the officers and soldiers around him. The battle through the jungle on Cuba and the eventual taking of San Juan Hill are described realistically, and Roosevelt is attuned to the intense comradeship of the men around him. Crane’s war journalism has been collected into a book titled The War Dispatches of Stephen Crane (1964). The first half of the book deals with the Greco-Turkish War, but the second half includes his dispatches from the Spanish-American War. Like Ernie Pyle’s writings ofWorld War II, Crane is often right there, on the front lines, listening to the sound of the rifles, bullets, and artillery. In one dispatch entitled ‘‘Regulars Get No Glory,’’ he chides the American public for its fixation on

266 |

Literature and Veterans

socialites participating in the war while ignoring the average man, especially those in the regular army who were being paid but $13 a month.

The First World War American participation in this war was only a year and a half shorter than other countries’. As a result, the literature about American veterans in this war is limited. There are, however, two works of fiction worth noting, both written not by soldiers but by members of the ambulance service: Ernest Hemingway and John Dos Passos. Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961) was born in Oak Park, Illinois. He began his career as a reporter. When the United States entered the war, he attempted to join the military but was rejected because of a bad eye. He then signed up as a volunteer ambulance driver for the Red Cross. He ended up in Italy where he was wounded by shrapnel. From this experience, he wrote the novel A Farewell to Arms (1929). The book is not about the American armed forces, but it is about the war that Americans eventually fought as seen from the perspective of an American doing volunteer work. Known as a great stylist, Hemingway’s sparse prose intensifies his description of the physical destruction of the landscape by war and intensifies his scenes of bedraggled troops moving about the war zone. Dos Passos (1896–1970) joined the Norton-Harjes ambulance service on the Verdun front in 1917. A few months later he became a Red Cross ambulance driver in Italy (as was Hemingway). He is often quoted as saying war was like a cancer of lies and any ideas of war being romantic for him were gone. Upon returning home,

he wrote a novel about military life (though he had never been in the service) tracing the life of a group of soldiers in Three Soldiers (1921). The book is divided up into three parts: training, the front line, and desertion in Paris. Highly anti-war (his views would change in later years), the book is critical of the regimentation and anti-individualism of the military.

World War II There is much veteran-oriented literature written about World War II, both fiction and nonfiction. But perhaps no American writer presents the total experience of the American military veteran as sweepingly as does James Jones (1921–1977) in his trilogy of novels, From Here to Eternity (1951), The Thin Red Line (1962), and Whistle (posthumously published in 1978 and finished by Willie Morris [1934–1999]). Like many of the fiction writers in this genre, James Jones lived many of the experiences that he wrote about. He joined the peacetime Army Air Corps in 1939 and was stationed in Hawaii where he transferred to the infantry (the 25th ‘‘Tropic Lightning’’ Infantry Division). As fate would have it, he was garrisoned at Schofield Barracks near Pearl Harbor and witnessed the Japanese bombing on December 7, 1941. His unit was then sent to fight in the battle of Guadalcanal where he participated in hand-to-hand combat, was wounded by mortar fire, received a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. He was sent back to an army hospital at Camp Campbell, Kentucky, and discharged in 1944. He, himself, has described his trilogy as the record of the evolution of a soldier. The first of his novels, From Here to Eternity, is set on a peacetime base.

Literature and Veterans Written in a naturalistic style, it depicts an often crude and cruel garrison life. Most importantly, it describes the psychological battle between the individualism of American citizens and the loss of individualism that the military demands of its fighters. The Thin Red Line focuses on the veteran as combat soldier. The title refers to the thin line between civilized man and the primitive, bestial man. The setting is again one which Jones himself experienced: the battle for Guadalcanal. Told from multiple points of views, it might be seen as the anti-Band of Brothers novel, arguing that combat is an isolated experience. Jones is realistic in presenting the horrors of combat. In Whistle, Jones describes the life of the returning veteran, especially as lived in an army hospital. Not considered his best book (he, of course, died before he could finish it himself), it nevertheless realistically explores guilt and other complex emotions that combat soldiers often feel upon returning to civilian life. In addition to James Jones, there is a large pool of exceptional fiction written about World War II. Some of the authors include Edward Latimer Beach Jr., Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., and Joseph Heller. Edward Latimer Beach Jr. (1918– 2002) was born in New York City. He attended the Naval Academy and served in the Pacific, primarily on submarines, and was awarded the Navy Cross, among other awards for bravery and service. His novel Run Silent, Run Deep (1955) realistically depicts naval submarine combat during the Second World War. The action part of the story deals with a duel between the fictional American submarine, the USS Eel, and an infamous Japanese antisubmarine force led by a crafty,

| 267

competent Japanese captain nicknamed Bungo Pete. Norman Mailer (1923–2007) was born in Long Branch, New Jersey, and was drafted into the army. His experiences in the Philippines gave him the material to write The Naked and the Dead (1948). Mailer himself did not see much combat (his primary job was as a cook) but the book is filled with graphic details and he is a talented writer. The book explores the petty, senseless power structure of the military (as Mailer saw it) and the tragic results of men too immature and too callous to handle the power of life and death that officers and NCOs have. In the book, the average soldier has his personal pride and individualism taken away and dies for less than noble reasons. Kurt Vonnegut Jr.—one of the premier writers of the twentieth century—was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1922 and died in 2007. Vonnegut was a member of the army infantry during the war and was a prisoner of war in Dresden during its fire bombing. He survived because he was in an underground meat locker. As the title of his novel Slaughterhouse 5: or, The Children’s Crusade (1969) suggests, the book revolves (in a science fiction, time traveling way) around the main character’s survival of the fire bombing. The subtitle is important also because, like Paul Fussell (see below), Vonnegut wants to remind the reader that the war was fought by young men, not he-man heroes as portrayed in some movies. The humor in the book (as in most of Vonnegut’s books) is a dark humor that is critical of man’s inhumanity. Like Vonnegut, Joseph Heller (1923– 1999) was a satirist. He was born in Brooklyn, New York, and was a member

268 |

Literature and Veterans

of the Army Air Corp during the Second World War. He was a bombardier on a B-25 and flew 60 missions. His novel Catch-22 (1961) added the popular phrase ‘‘catch-22’’ to the American vocabulary and provided an acerbic critique of the bureaucracy and greed that can be associated with war and with the military-industrial complex. Some of the nonfiction standouts about World War II include the works of Ernie Pyle (1900–1945), Stephen Ambrose (1936–2002), Walter Lord, and Paul Fussell (1924–). Journalist Ernie Pyle was born near Dana, Indiana, and had a long career as a popular columnist before joining the press corp covering World War II. He was one of the best-known and most liked correspondents during the Second World War. Like Stephen Crane, he put himself right there in the thick of battle and reported on the life of the average soldier. In 1944, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting from the battlefield. He began his war correspondence by recording the bombing of Britain. Then he moved to North Africa, Europe (he was in Normandy on the day after DDay), and finally to the Pacific. In 1945, he was killed during the Battle for Okinawa. His dispatches have been edited and collected by David Nichols and published as Ernie’s War: The Best of Ernie Pyle’s World War II Dispatches (1986). Stephen Ambrose, perhaps the premier (in terms of popularity) nonfiction writer of the Second World War, was born in Decatur, Illinois. He was the official biographer of Dwight Eisenhower, a professor in 1970 at the Naval War College, and founded the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans. Ambrose championed the citizen soldier but could be critical at times, as well.

One of his most popular books is Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne, from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest (1992). Using the traditional Benjamin Lossing technique of interviews, letters, and official reports for his sources, Ambrose follows E Company from training until the end of the war in Europe. Other books on World War II include Pegasus Bridge: 6 June, 1944 (1984), Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany (1997), The Victors: Eisenhower and His Boys—The Men of World War II (1998), Wild Blue: The B24s Over Germany, 1944–45 (2001), and D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II (1994). He is sometimes criticized for writing too quickly and too sloppily in order to take advantage of his popularity with readers, but in any case, he is generally admired for presenting a positive and realistic picture of veterans during the Second World War. In addition to his book on the War of 1812, Walter Lord has also written extensively on the Second World War. Again, he has used the techniques of interviews, reports, and memoirs and has narrated the experiences of veterans, both American and Japanese. In Day of Infamy (1957), Lord traces the attack on Pearl Harbor, starting on December 6 and ending on December 8 with the radio announcement of Franklin Roosevelt. He also wrote a book, Incredible Victory (1967), which documents the Battle of Midway using the same techniques he used in his other books. English literature Professor Paul Fussell was born in Pasadena, California. He served during the Second World War as a second lieutenant in Europe and was wounded in France. It is his

Literature and Veterans crusade to forever banish any vestige of romanticism, patriotism, or honor from war. In an interview, Fussell commented on the Steven Spielberg movie Saving Private Ryan. From Fussell’s perspective, the scenes of the landing were realistically gruesome but the rest of the movie was nothing but a tale of cowboys and Indians. He did, however, like the miniseries Band of Brothers (2001) which, for him, shows a more realistic picture of the military with brainwashing, bullies, incompetence, atrocities, foul language, and desertions. His book The Boys’ Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944–1945 (2003) creates a collage of anecdotes and facts that he hopes will deromanticize war. He reminds people that war is fought by adolescent boys, that there are deaths by friendly fire, that there are desertions and self-inflicted wounds, that there are special units that collect the bodies from the battlefield, and that officers often (according to him) send out other officers who have offended them (a la Norman Mailer’s The Naked and the Dead [1948]) to be butchered.

The Korean War Sometimes called the ‘‘forgotten war,’’ the Korean War has not been forgotten by its participants. From the fiction perspective, we have James A. Michener’s The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1953), James Salter’s The Hunters (1956), and James Brady’s The Marines of Autumn (2000). In addition, there is Brady’s memoir, The Coldest War (1990). Michener (1907–1997) is most often known for his romantic, panoramic novels of place: the South Pacific, Texas,

| 269

the Chesapeake area, Alaska, and so on. He was born in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, and served as a naval officer during World War II. His book The Bridges at Toko-Ri would no doubt be put in the category of romantic warfare according to Paul Fussell. It is the story of navy pilots flying missions over Korea. James Salter (1925–), like Michener, writes about combat pilots. Born in New York City, Salter attended West Point and then joined the air force as a pilot. He remained in the air force for 12 years and flew over a hundred combat missions as a fighter pilot in Korea. His novel The Hunters is not the nitty-gritty foxhole story where soldiers encounter death on a very gruesome, personal level. But it is certainly not the romanticism of Michener, either. What Salter does especially well is put you right there in the cockpit, flying at 500 plus miles per hour, locked in split-second combat with MiG-15s while, at the same time, giving you insight into the mindset of the combat pilot during the Korean War. James Brady (1928–) was in college when the draft was reinstated for the Korean War. He had no desire to be a soldier in the army so he joined the U.S. Marines to become an officer. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corp Reserves and was called up to active duty, arriving in Korea in 1951. As a result, he missed the Chosin Reservoir Battle, but using his personal experiences and interviews with marines who had been in the battle, he wrote the novel The Marines of Autumn (2000). The novel follows the life of a marine officer (a Chinese expert who has been called back into service) who is there to monitor Chinese radio traffic. The book chronicles the push northward as well as the retreat to the sea.

270 |

Literature and Veterans

In The Coldest War (1990), Brady relates his own combat experiences in Korea. For Brady, the war is mostly fought on frozen ridges where both sides have their artillery zeroed in on each others’ positions. It is, for Brady and his fellow marines, a war of combat patrols in the middle of the night where men walk through treacherous mine fields and booby traps, testing their courage, their skills, and their loyalty to each other. Unlike Jones or Mailer, Brady in the end is proud to have served (though he realizes that not every officer was competent) and proud to have been a marine.

The Vietnam War In many respects, the books about veterans and veteran experiences that came out of the war in Vietnam are similar to the literature of the First World War (written primarily by the British and Europeans). They are often in the pessimistic strain where writers focus on atrocities and the inability to adjust to civilian life. Two of the exceptions to this trend are We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young (1992) and Faith of My Fathers (1999), both nonfiction. Written by Harold G. Moore (1923–) and Joseph L. Galloway (1941–), We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young is the totally honest depiction of two of the bloodiest and most brutal engagements of the Vietnam War: the battle of Landing Zone XRay and the battle of Landing Zone Albany in the Ia Drang Valley. In 1965, Harold Moore was in command of Landing Zone X-Ray as a lieutenant colonel. Joseph Galloway was a reporter for UPI who was at Landing Zone X-Ray with Moore. The troops that came in by helicopter were outnumbered (450 to 4,000) and surrounded by the North Vietnamese Army.

The book is peppered with interviews with various soldiers, giving firsthand accounts of the battle. Through a great deal of leadership and even more courage from the American infantry, the Americans were able to overcome the attack on their position. The soldiers at Landing Zone Albany were less successful. The book also includes Moore’s criticisms of the way the war was fought in Vietnam. John McCain (1936–) with Mark Salter wrote Faith of My Fathers (1999). About a third of this book is the presentation of the military life of John McCain’s grandfather and father—both navy admirals. The last two thirds of the book do something unique in books about veterans: it follows the development of a veteran from baby to POW. The heart of the book, though, is McCain’s narrative of his life and the life of his fellow prisoners in Hoa Lo, the ‘‘Hanoi Hilton.’’ The book and McCain’s attitude is neither naı¨ve nor romantic, but at the same time not bitter, holding steadfast to his belief, as he says at the end, in the virtue of brave men. (See also Prisoners of War/Missing in Action.) In a more pessimistic tone, Philip Caputo (1941–) has written a memoir vividly recalling his time in Vietnam as a marine lieutenant. In A Rumor of War (1977), he relates how he is overwhelmed by moral uncertainty and senseless carnage. Though he is capable of courage and is even a good combat officer, he begins to become unhinged. In the end, he orders a patrol to snatch two boys who are suspected to be Viet Cong from a village; they are killed and he is court-martialed. The military court finds him not guilty, but reprimands him for attempting to cover the incident up. After his discharge, he joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War and sends his campaign ribbons to the White House.

Literature and Veterans It has been said that there are thousands of books written on the Vietnam War. But there are two author/veterans who stand out for their fiction: Tim O’Brien and Larry Heinemann. Tim O’Brien (1946–) was born in Worthington, Minnesota. He served in the infantry from 1968 until 1970 and saw combat in Vietnam. While he wrote a memoir, If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home (1973), he is most famous for his book of interconnected short stories, The Things They Carried (1990). In his collection, the main character (also called Tim O’Brien) has allowed himself to be drafted not because he believed in it (he most assuredly did not) but because he was too embarrassed not to. The stories relate the fears, guilt, and preoccupations of the men in the platoon. A talented writer, O’Brien does not skimp with gory details. For him, the war has no patriotism, no reason, just a disturbing sadness. War stories, says the narrator, should never have anything positive to say about war. Larry Heinemann (1944–), born in Chicago, also served in the infantry in Vietnam. His novel Paco’s Story (1979) won the National Book Award for fiction. This is mostly the story of the aftereffects of war and of the inability of Paco to integrate back into civilian life. There are flashbacks to his combat experience, but the story primarily follows the wanderings of Paco who is an object of curiosity rather than respect.

| 271

and Islamic extremism. One of the historical changes in the military during this most recent time period is that the military is now both professional and voluntary. This trend is reflected in two nonfiction books written by Mark Bowden and Michael Yon. Blackhawk Down (1999) by Mark Bowden is a recreation of the mission by American Special Forces (Delta and Seals) in Mogadishu, Somalia, that went wrong. Bowden, born in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1951, is a journalist. To write the book, he interviewed the survivors and used videos of the fighting as well as audio of the radio conversation of the men during the battle. And like Walter Lord, Bowden also interviewed some of the Somali participants. Bowden makes the point that war delves deeply and profoundly into what it means to be a human being. The men—until Bowden wrote the book—felt as though they had been forgotten by their country. Moment of Truth in Iraq (2008) is Michael Yon’s attempt to give an accurate picture of the war in Iraq. Yon (1964–) is a former Green Beret who has been a journalist in Iraq. While he was critical of some of the policies and strategies in the beginning of the war, he now argues—through a presentation of anecdotes demonstrating the life and actions of American service personnel—that much good is being done. In addition, Yon reports on the humanitarian side of American warriors that is present in all wars, countering the image that some like to give of the American military as a band of beasts who only commit atrocities.

The African and Arabian Campaigns

The Gulf and Iraq Wars

Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq have all been battlefields since Vietnam and are part of the larger war on terrorism

Several fine works of literature have been published about the Gulf War. The lives and relationships of soldiers who spent

272 |

Literature and Veterans

more time waiting to fight than waging a war whose ground action was over in a matter of days tends to be the main theme. Novels We Pierce by Andrew Huebner (2003), Tom Paine’s Pearl of Kuwait (2003), and The Consignment by Grant Sutherland (2003); and memoirs Jarhead: A Marine’s Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford (2003) and Baghdad Express: A Gulf War Memoir by Joel Turnipseed deal with faulty weapons and technology, stifling heat, and the tensions and friendships that arise among men who expect to engage in serious combat only to be surprised at the lack of any closure besides encountering surrendering civilians and soldiers. The Iraq War has yet to inspire important fiction, but several powerful memoirs have emerged. David Bellavia House to House: An Epic Memoir of War (2007) and Nathanael Fick’s One Bullet Away (2007) are the stories of a soldier and marine lieutenant, respectively, who take pride in their professionalism and ability but inevitably wind up killing civilians and failing to experience victory or satisfaction. Kayla Williams, in Love My Rifle More Than You (2007), tells the war from a woman soldier’s perspective, emphasizing the sexual tension and harassment women veterans frequently experience. Colby Buzzell’s My War: Killing Time in Iraq (2008) is a sardonic comment on the absurdity of war by a young man tempted by a recruiter’s promises of an easy life. The memoir is based on his internet blogs, which attracted a huge following and turned him into a writer in spite of himself.

survey here is just that: a survey, an overview, a mere sampling. But all of the literature in some way or another asks the same philosophical question: Is the man in war capable of nobility, or is he forever only a victim? There are a variety of answers represented here. On the side of nobility, writers often note the humanistic camaraderie of soldiers—the Band of Brothers phenomenon—the ennobling effects of courage, the existential nobility of sacrifice, and the nobility of fighting for a just cause. Those who see the veteran as a victim bemoan the loss of individualism (especially in a country that holds individualism as a primary virtue); they find themselves overwhelmed and shocked by petty uses of power, and they decry the lasting negative psychological effect of war on men and women as too high of a price to pay. Both groups have written about war as they understand it; most writers, even those who see war’s ennobling possibilities, have avoided romanticism and written as accurately and realistically about the American veteran as they can. Most importantly, all of their books—and all of the writers would agree—act as the permanent memory for the American public of the sacrifices made by good men and women for their country.

Conclusion

Further Reading

People have been writing about the American veteran for over 200 years now. The

Dawes, James. The Language of War: Literature and Culture in the U.S. from the

William P. Toth See also Film and Veterans; Lifton, Robert Jay; Music and Veterans; Revolutionary War Veterans; War of 1812 Veterans; Mexican War Veterans; Civil War Veterans; Spanish-American War Veterans; World War I Veterans; World War II Veterans; Korean War Veterans; Vietnam War Veterans; Gulf War Veterans; Iraq War Veterans

Logan, John (1826–1886) | 273 Civil War through World War II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Dunnigan, James F. The World War II Bookshelf. New York: Citadel Press, 2004. Fussell, Paul. ‘‘Uneasy Company: Band of Brothers Is Private Ryan for Grown-Ups.’’ Slate September 7, 2001. www.slate.com/ id/114810. ‘‘Gulf War.’’ Overbooked: A Resource for Readers. www.overbooked.org/booklists/ subjects/war/gulfwar.html. Walsh, Jeffrey. American War Literature, 1914 to Vietnam. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982. Wilson, Edmund. Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

LOGAN, JOHN (1826–1886) John A. Logan was a Union general during the American Civil War and most notable as a veteran for his connection with the Grand Army of the Republic. Logan grew up in Illinois, serving as a lawyer, member of the state House of Representatives, and congressman, as a member of the Democratic Party. He served in the Mexican-American War as a second lieutenant with the First Illinois Infantry. When the Civil War broke out, Logan fought at Bull Run as a civilian, but soon resigned his Congressional seat and became colonel of the 31st Illinois Infantry. Logan is credited with ending secessionist talk in southern Illinois at the same time. During the war, Logan served under Ulysses S. Grant in the western theater and saw action at the battles of Belmont, Fort Donelson (where Logan was wounded), siege of Corinth, and commanded the Third Division of the XVII Corps, which was the first unit to enter Vicksburg.

After Vicksburg, Logan briefly commanded the Army of the Tennessee during the battle of Atlanta until relieved. Logan then led the XV Corps during the Carolinas campaign. Logan was sent by Grant to relieve George Thomas during the battle of Nashville, but he was halted when Thomas achieved victory. During the war, Logan rose from colonel to major general. After the war, Logan was active in politics, but as a Republican. He served in the Congress and the Senate and was the vice presidential nominee with James G. Blaine in 1884. In addition to his political career, Logan was active in the Grand Army of the Republic, serving as commander in chief of the organization for several years, and was instrumental in establishing Memorial Day as a national holiday. His General Order No. 11, which established Memorial Day on May 30, 1868, is well known, and is read at many Memorial Day ceremonies across the country. Logan’s order described the goal of the holiday as . . . designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

(General Orders No. 11)

In addition to his political activism for veterans, Logan was also an ardent supporter of education. He delivered a speech in March 1882 on education to advocate support for a bill that he introduced, which required that taxes on alcohol be used to expand educational

274 |

Lost Cause

opportunities to all children in the United States. In the speech, Logan argued that the millions of children attending school were a better defense for the nation than a large standing army. Logan’s legacy is preserved every year by the Memorial Day holiday, in which Americans gather to honor all veterans who gave their lives in service to their country. He is also memorialized with statues in Chicago and Washington, DC. Several locations bear his name, including Logan County, Kansas, as well as John A. Logan College, a community college in Carterville, Illinois. Logan is considered by several historians as one of the best volunteer generals of the Civil War. Daniel Sauerwein

Further Reading ‘‘A Brief Biography of John A. Logan.’’ www.jalc.edu/johnlogan.html. ‘‘General John A. Logan MuseumBiography.’’ www.loganmuseum.org/ genjal.html. John A. Logan College. www.jal.cc.il.us. General Order No. 11. Washington, DC: Headquarters Grand Army of the Republic, May 5, 1868. www.jal.cc.il.us/ loganmemorial.html.

LOST CAUSE See Confederate Veterans Associations

M Having his first tour of duty in the Philippines, he was an aide-de-camp to his father and was in Japan during the Russo-Japanese War. In 1914 he served on the Vera Cruz Expedition to Mexico and was chief of staff of the 42nd Division in World War I. He ended World War I as the most decorated U.S. officer from the war. Returning to the United States, MacArthur was appointed as superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where he was credited with modernizing the curriculum. From 1922 until 1930 he was back in the Philippines, being promoted to the rank of major general in 1925—the youngest officer to hold that rank at the time. In 1930 MacArthur returned to the United States as chief of staff of the U.S. Army, where he once again turned to modernizing tactics and equipment. He was ordered by U.S. President Herbert Hoover to disperse the ‘‘Bonus Army’’ made up of discontented veterans who were protesting against government inaction during the first years of the

MACARTHUR, DOUGLAS (1880–1964) Douglas MacArthur fought in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, becoming one of the few men to become a full or five-star general of the U.S. Army. He was born on January 26, 1880, in the Tower Building of Little Rock Arsenal in Little Rock, Arkansas. His father was Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur Jr., who had served in the U.S. Civil War in the 24th Wisconsin Infantry and then was a member of the regular army, seeing action in the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection. His son was destined for the military at a young age, and with the family moving to Texas in 1893, Douglas MacArthur went to the West Texas Military Academy and then to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated first in his class (of 930) in 1903, an achievement he shared with Robert E. Lee among other important military leaders. 275

276 |

MacArthur, Douglas (1880–1964)

Great Depression (see Bonus March). Despite President Hoover’s order not to fire on their camp at Anacostia Flats, he did so and was sent back to the Philippines. In 1935 when the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established— giving it a semi-independent status— MacArthur was commissioned by President Manuel Quezon with creating a Philippine Army. Initially MacArthur was able to remain on the active list of U.S. officers. However, in 1937 he had to resign to become field marshal of the Philippine Army, remaining not only the only person to hold that rank, but also the only U.S. military officer to hold it. With the threat of a Japanese attack, in July 1941 MacArthur was recalled to active duty in the U.S. Army and was appointed commander of the U.S. armed forces in the Far East. As Allied commander in the Philippines when the Japanese attacked in December 1941, MacArthur became famous for his establishment of the island fortress of Corregidor (see American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor). In March 1942 MacArthur left the Philippines for Melbourne, Australia, on orders from President Roosevelt, famously promising ‘‘I shall return.’’ Then as supreme commander of Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific Area, MacArthur not only had control over U.S. soldiers, but also Australians involved in the fighting in New Guinea. MacArthur’s Pacific strategy of advancing from the Dutch West Indies island by island toward the Japanese mainland while U.S. planes and ships prevented their reinforcement was successful. On October 20, 1944, fulfilling his vow to return to the Philippines, MacArthur landed at Leyte Island, recaptured the Philippines, and then pressed on with plans for an invasion of the Japanese

mainland. While the Japanese were prepared to fight the invasion, the dropping of the atomic bombs changed their minds. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945. On the USS Missouri in Tokyo Harbor, on September 2, 1945, MacArthur formally received the Japanese surrender. MacArthur was then appointed to exercise authority over the Japanese government, becoming virtual dictator in that country while reconstruction plans for Japan were put into motion. Controversially, MacArthur decided not to put Emperor Hirohito on trial, or depose him, for fear of causing conflict in the country. He is credited with smoothly effecting the transition in Japan to a democratic government. In June 1950, with the outbreak of the Korean War, MacArthur was put in charge of UN forces empowered by the world body to drive back the North Koreans who, at that stage, occupied most of the Korean peninsula. MacArthur injected energy into the UN soldiers—dominated by the United States—and after landing at Inchon way behind enemy lines, drove back the North Koreans to the Yalu River marking the border with China. The use of such devastating firepower against the North Koreans, resulting in the deaths of many civilians, was much criticized at the time, including by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Many writers have also been critical of his inability to fight a limited war. Indeed, at the time the Chinese, worried about a possible invasion of their country, sent troops into Korea, thereby widening the conflict considerably. MacArthur wanted permission to bomb Chinese bases in Manchuria. Harry S Truman felt that this could lead to a full-scale Chinese invasion or drag the Soviet Union into the war, and after the

McCain, John (1936–) two publicly disagreed, Truman sacked MacArthur, who returned to Washington, DC, in 1951—his first visit to the continental United States since 1940. He made a farewell speech to the U.S. Congress in which he defended his position against Communism and concluded with the remark ‘‘Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.’’ The speech was interrupted by 30 ovations. Many U.S. veterans viewed MacArthur as a hero despite his dispersal of the Bonus marchers, and he was enthusiastically received by the American Legion and members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for his outspoken patriotism. Although there was pressure for MacArthur to stand in the U.S. presidential elections, he chose not to do so as early indications suggested most of the public agreed with Truman in dismissing him. In 1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had served under MacArthur, was elected president. In retirement, MacArthur’s counsel was sought by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 just after the Bay of Pigs invasion. MacArthur urged Kennedy to try not to get too entangled in Vietnam. A move to raise MacArthur to the rank of a six-star general, mooted by U.S. Senator Joseph Martin in 1956, failed, and MacArthur spent the last few years of his life with his second wife in a New York City penthouse at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. He died on April 5, 1964. Justin Corfield See also World War I Veterans; World War II Veterans; Korean War Veterans

Further Reading Blair, Clay. MacArthur. London: Futura, 1977.

| 277

Gunther, John. The Riddle of General MacArthur. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1951. Hunt, Frazier. The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur. New York: The Devin Adair Company, 1954. Manchester, William. American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880–1964. London: Hutchinson, 1978.

MCCAIN, JOHN (1936–) Republican U.S. Senator John Sidney McCain III, from Arizona, was the Republican nominee for president of the United States in 2008. A prominent veteran, his father and his paternal grandfather were both admirals in the U.S. Navy, his grandfather, John S. McCain Sr., being the commander of naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. John S. McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, in the Panama Canal Zone—which at the time was U.S. territory making him eligible to contest the U.S. presidential election. His father had many naval postings, and McCain attended a number of schools before going to the Episcopal High School at Alexandria, Virginia, and then the U.S. Naval Academy. Serving in the U.S. Navy, McCain was in the Caribbean during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in 1967 took part in Operation Rolling Thunder which saw major bombing raids on North Vietnam. During the bombing, McCain and others in the air force were angered at the targets nominated by the White House, and although his first air operations were successful, on October 26, 1967, he was shot down near Hanoi. Landing at the Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi, a crowd of Vietnamese attacked him and then took him to the Hoa Lo Prison in Hanoi, nicknamed the ‘‘Hanoi Hilton.’’ Interrogated and beaten,

278 |

Memorial Day

soon the North Vietnamese discovered that McCain’s father was the commander in chief of the Pacific Command, and hence the overall commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam. To try to gain goodwill, the North Vietnamese offered to release him quickly. However, he refused unless all those captured before him were also released. Held as a prisoner for five and a half years, McCain was finally released in 1973 after the signing of the Paris Peace Agreement. Returning to the United States, he worked with Hensley & Company in charge of the Anheuser-Busch beer distribution, run by his father-in-law. A lifelong Republican, he served in the U.S. Congress from 1982 until 1987. Then he was elected to succeed Senator Barry Goldwater who was retiring from the U.S. Senate. Becoming a major speaker on defense and related matters, McCain quickly became seen as a possible contender for the presidency. His book Faith of My Fathers, published in 1999, was a huge success, and in 2000 he contested the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency. He decided not to pay too much attention to the Iowa caucus, concentrating on the New Hampshire primary in which he defeated George W. Bush. However, Bush managed to rally the Republicans to defeat him in South Carolina. It was during the campaign in this state that rumors were spread that McCain had had an affair with an African American and had an illegitimate daughter. These allegations were untrue —McCain had adopted a girl from Bangladesh—but the rumors did much to damage his image. During his 2008 campaign, McCain continued to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary to defend the United States. His military service

and time spent as a prisoner of war figured prominently in his campaign advertisements as signs of his courage and patriotism. However, an economic tailspin under a Republican president occurred during the last weeks of the campaign, which probably would have made it impossible for any Republican to have been elected president, and McCain lost the campaign to Democrat Barack Obama. Justin Corfield See also Vietnam War Veterans; Prisoners of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA)

Further Reading McCain, John. Faith of My Fathers. New York: Random House, 1999. Timberg, Robert. John McCain: An American Odyssey. New York: Free Press, 2007.

MEMORIAL DAY People, especially women, began to decorate the graves of deceased soldiers during the Civil War. About 30 communities claim to have originated the practice. In the summer or fall of 1864, Emma Hunter of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, placed flowers on the tomb of her father Colonel James Hunter, who commanded the 49th Pennsylvania Regiment at the Battle of Gettysburg. Former slaves in Charleston, South Carolina, reburied union soldiers who had been interred in a mass grave in individual plots, fenced off the area, and built an arch declaring it a Union graveyard in 1865. Such brave actions may have been one of the reasons Southerners retaliated against African American Civil War veterans in the days immediately following the Civil War.

Memorial Day

| 279

Women decorate Confederate graves in Charleston, South Carolina, about 1903. [Courtesy of the Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-10233]

Belle Isle in the James River, Virginia, also claims to be the first community to have originated the practice as women decorated the graves of Union prisoners of war at a Confederate prison camp on May 30, 1866. The town of Waterloo, New York, received legal recognition as ‘‘the Birthplace of Memorial Day’’ by act of Congress on Mary 17, 1966. A druggist of that town, Henry C. Welles, and local general John Murray approved the idea in May 1865. Murray was a close friend of General John Logan, commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, who suggested, during a speech in his home state of Illinois in 1866, that the practice be generally followed. Memorial Day was at first known as Decoration Day, only acquiring the name Memorial Day gradually after World War II and officially in 1967. It first became publicized nationwide in 1868, when Logan sent an order to all the GAR’s posts recommending that May 30 be observed ‘‘with strewing with flowers or

otherwise decorating the graves of the Comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion . . . with the hope that it will be kept from year to year while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of the departed.’’ The GAR began to pressure state legislatures to make the holiday official: New York was the first state to do so in 1873. By 1890 all the northern states had made the holiday official. The South refused to do so and used a variety of other holidays, most frequently the birthdays of Robert E. Lee (January 19) or Jefferson Davis (June 3). At the present time, eight former southern states have a separate day to honor the Confederate dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis’s birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee. Memorial Day was always observed on May 30 until passage of the Uniform Federal Holidays Act in 1968, which to

280 |

Memorial Day

achieve a maximum number of three-day weekends changed it to the final Monday in May beginning in 1971. Beginning in 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, himself a wounded World War II veteran, urged without success that the holiday be restored to May 30, as have the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. They insist that having a three-day weekend undermines the solemn meaning of the day and makes the public regard it as a celebration rather than a chance to reflect on the sacrifices of veterans. In 2000, Congress passed ‘‘the National Moment of Remembrance Resolution’’ asking Americans to observe a moment of silence or listen to ‘‘Taps’’ at 3:00 P.M. on Memorial Day to remember the true meaning of the holiday.

In fact, the Memorial Day weekend has become at least as important a marker of the unofficial beginning of summer as a chance to honor veterans. Many beaches and swimming pools open this weekend. Baseball has traditionally held doubleheaders on Memorial Day, and the Indianapolis 500 Race has occurred on the Memorial Day weekend since 1911. Parades in which local veterans’ organizations are joined by fire departments, emergency vehicles, politicians, and school bands are followed by barbecues and picnics. William Pencak

Further Reading Henderson, Helene. Patriotic Holidays of the United States: An Introduction to the

The Sons of Confederate Veterans along with the Military Order of the Stars and Bars of Alexandria, Virginia, march down Independence Avenue in the first National Memorial Day Parade in Washington, May 30, 2005. It was the first Memorial Day parade in Washington, DC, since World War II. [AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke]

Merchant Marine Veterans | 281 History, Symbols, and Traditions Behind the Major Holidays and Days of Observance. Detroit: Omnigraphics, 2006. Myers, Robert J. Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972.

MENTAL ILLNESS See Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS Each year during World War II, the president of the United States proclaimed National Maritime Day on May 22 and directed the flag be displayed to honor ‘‘the thousands of patriotic men and women . . . toiling through the long hours of the day and night in the construction of the great fleets of vessels that carry the goods of victory to the distant battlefronts of the United Nations,’’ and ‘‘the officers and seamen all of whom have left the security of their firesides and many of whom have given their lives.’’ National Maritime Day had been approved by a joint resolution of Congress in 1933 (National Maritime Day Proclamations, www.usmm.org/md/ maritdayfdr.html). The U.S. Maritime Service (USMS) was established as an official U.S. training program with the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Training operations began in 1938 and over a quarter of a million men were taught all aspects of operating ships as well as given the weapons training needed to meet potential enemy ships on the high seas. The USMS training operation began in September 1938 and continued until 1954. President Roosevelt understood the need for a strong

U.S. Merchant Marine for the coming war. The USMS was an armed, uniformed service that faced the enemy on its many training ships. Then the trainees were assigned to ships of the U.S. Merchant Marine, Army Transport Service. During World War II, the Merchant Marine engaged in the greatest transport effort in world history. Estimates of Merchant Marine casualties vary as no official statistics were kept and the government kept the numbers secret during the war to continue to attract recruits. The lowest number of deaths is 5,662 and the highest 8,421 with an additional 1,110 mariners dying later of wounds. About 12,000 mariners were wounded. Six hundred eighty ships were sunk, nearly a thousand more damaged, and 663 to 721 mariners were taken as prisoners. One in 26 mariners were killed in the war, as opposed to 1 in 34 for the marines, 1 in 48 for the army, and 1 in 114 for the navy. Thirty-five percent of the ships were damaged or sunk and 52 percent of the deaths occurred in 1942. The Merchant Marine began supplying Britain with weapons and other supplies soon after World War II began in September 1939. The City of Flint was the first American ship boarded and captured by the Germans on October 9, 1939. Since the Germans were trying at the time to keep the United States out of war, the ship was returned and arrived in Baltimore on January 27, 1940. The first merchant marine vessel sunk in the war was the City of Rayville that struck a mine near Melbourne, Australia, on November 8, 1940: one man was killed and the rest were rescued. The sinking of the freighter Robin Moor by a German u-boat on May 21, 1941, led President Roosevelt to denounce submarine warfare: all the crew managed to escape into

282 |

Merchant Marine Veterans

lifeboats and were rescued after 13 days at sea. Several other American ships, some carrying Panamanian flags, were sunk with loss of life before war was formally declared. The greatest disaster suffered by the Merchant Marine occurred at Bari in Italy on December 2, 1943. Seventeen Allied merchant ships were sunk and over 1,000 lives lost. One hundred tons of mustard gas on the SS John Harvey exploded and poisoned 83 military personnel and an uncounted number of civilians. Through the Murmansk Run, the Merchant Marine supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots. Over 2,700 merchant ships accompanied the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, receiving fire as they landed the troops and supplies. One thousand volunteers sailed and sunk, near the shore, 22 ships which could then be used for landing sites. In the Pacific, the Merchant Marine was present at all the island battles from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima and lost 44 ships. During the invasion of the Philippines, it shot down over a hundred planes and landed 30,000 troops and a half million tons of supplies. A Japanese submarine committed an atrocity against the SS Jean Nicolet on July 2, 1944. It was in the process of executing the 59 Americans who survived when it dove to evade a British plane: only 23 men survived. The wartime Merchant Marine continued to recruit and sail well into 1946, transporting supplies for troops still overseas and also returning the troops home. Despite its heroism and testimonials from leading generals and admirals, the Merchant Marine did not have a good reputation during the war. The public generally believed men joined it to avoid

the draft and receive high pay, although the service was more dangerous and the pay comparable to the other services. Yet Congress did not grant the Merchant Marine personnel veterans’ status: they paid for their own hospital bills and did not enjoy the educational and financial benefits of the GI Bill. Beginning in 1977, when the WASPS (Women Airforce Service Pilots) received veterans’ status (see Women Veterans, World War I to the Present) the Merchant Marine began to lobby vigorously for a change in their status. They were admitted as members and supported by the American Legion. Nevertheless, the secretary of the air force, who was charged by the Defense Department with determining who was in fact a veteran, turned them down four times. Only in 1988, following a federal lawsuit, was the Defense Department compelled to acknowledge their claim. Federal Judge Louis Oberdorfer ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by three former seamen with the support of the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association. Oberdorfer concluded that as women who had not officially been part of the service and groups such as telephone operators, dieticians, and clerks had been granted veterans’ status, the secretary of the air force had not let the men present their case fairly. His denial constituted ‘‘an abuse of discretion,’’ was ‘‘arbitrary and capricious,’’ and ‘‘contrary to law.’’ Only ‘‘unstated and vague criteria’’ were used to deny the application. However, the air force secretary then designated the war period for the Merchant Marine as being from December 7, 1941, until August 15, 1945, although Congress officially declared it ended for other veterans eligible for benefits on December 31, 1946. Despite proposed

Merry, John Festus (1844–1917) | 283 Congressional legislation, the date has yet to be changed. William Pencak See also World War II Veterans

Further Reading Bunker, John. Heroes in Dungarees: The Story of the American Merchant Marine in World War II. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995. Moore, Arthur R. A Careless Word—A Needless Sinking: A History of the Staggering Losses Suffered by the U.S. Merchant Marine, Both in Ships and Personnel, during World War II. Kings Point, NY: American Merchant Marine Museum, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 1983–1998. United States Merchant Marine. www.usmm.org. ‘‘Wartime Merchant Seamen to Get Veterans Status.’’ New York Times, January 21, 1988.

MERRY, JOHN FESTUS (1844–1917) Notable Civil War veteran John F. Merry was born in Summit County, Ohio, but moved to Iowa as a child. In 1862, he enlisted in the 21st Iowa, but was mustered out because of his wounds in the spring of 1863. Subsequently recovering his health, in 1864 he recruited a company of the 46th Iowa, a hundred-days regiment, and mustered out as a brevet captain. After the war he taught in his hometown of Manchester. His success at organizing Methodist church outings led to his employment with the Illinois Central Railroad, where he rose to be assistant general passenger agent. Merry became active in a variety of veterans’

organizations, including the Grand Army of the Republic and the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, and developed a keen interest in Civil War memorialization projects, serving on the commission that erected the Iowa Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Des Moines in the 1890s. He became best known for his efforts to promote the creation of a park that would preserve the battlefield at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Working with other Union and Confederate veterans, he was instrumental in securing congressional legislation that created the Vicksburg National Military Park in 1899 (see also Battleship Preservation). He then worked closely with fellow Iowa veteran William T. Rigby, park historian, to secure appropriations from northern and southern states to erect monuments in the park. Travel to Vicksburg also benefited the Illinois Central, the city’s major north-south rail link, and Merry was generous with passes and other support for the state commissions established to mark positions and erect monuments. Merry himself chaired the Iowa Vicksburg Monument Commission. Elected state commander of the GAR for 1915–1916, he successfully lobbied the state legislature for a change in the law to make it easier for county governments to fund monuments. He died on January 30, 1917. William C. Lowe

Further Reading Swisher, Jacob A. The Iowa Department of the Grand Army of the Republic. Iowa City, IA: Iowa State Historical Society, 1936. Waldrep, Christopher W. Vicksburg’s Long Shadow: The Civil War Legacy of Race

284 |

Mexican Expeditions, 1914–1917 and Remembrance. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.

MEXICAN EXPEDITIONS, 1914–1917 By the late-nineteenth century, the United States had a large economic stake in Mexico. Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz had encouraged foreign investment since taking power in 1876. When revolutionaries ousted him in 1910, the United States produced over half of Mexican oil and controlled threequarters of the mining industry. The civil war that ensued took on a strong antiAmerican overtone. The subsequent government of General Victoriano Huerta was not recognized by the United States since Huerta had not been democratically elected, was corrupt, and exercised little control over the country. President Woodrow Wilson ordered the port city of Vera Cruz captured upon receiving reports of German arms being sent to Huerta. On April 21, 1914, the U.S. Navy shelled the city and U.S. Marines stormed the shore to occupy it. Vera Cruz was secured the following day after bloody street fighting resulted in a large number of Mexican casualties. The Fifth Infantry Brigade of the U.S. Army occupied Vera Cruz until November 1914. As a result, Huerta resigned and went into exile in Spain. On October 19, 1915, heeding the advice of several Latin American countries, the United States recognized the government of Venustiano Carranza. This recognition angered the Mexican leader, Francisco ‘‘Pancho’’ Villa, a popular general who felt betrayed by the U.S. government. Villa, who roamed the northwest territory of Mexico known as Chihuahua

and knew the 94,000 square miles of terrain intimately, began retaliating against U.S. citizens. Villa’s forces, known as Villistas, removed 16 American mining engineers from a Mexican train near Santa Ysabel and executed them. On March 9, 1916, Villa and approximately 450 Villistas attacked the border town of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans, including 7 soldiers, and wounding 8. The following day, President Wilson’s administration released the following statement: ‘‘An adequate force will be sent at once in pursuit of Villa with the single object of capturing him and putting a stop to his forays.’’ This operation under the command of General John ‘‘Black Jack’’ Pershing became known as the Punitive Expedition. While Pershing moved into Mexico, setting up headquarters in Colonia Dublan, President Wilson called up the Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona National Guard to protect the borders; in June 1916, Wilson conscripted more state militias for border patrol. Over 135,000 National Guardsmen would serve on the Mexican-U.S. border during the Punitive Expedition. There were two border attacks, one at Glenn Springs, Texas, and the other at San Ygnacio, Texas, but for the most part guardsmen settled in for a monotonous routine of guard duty and drill. Villa proved elusive and combat was rare. On April 13, 1916, Villistas attacked American forces entering Mexico at Parral before being repulsed by U.S. reinforcements. One of the more successful American missions featured a young lieutenant named George S. Patton Jr., who along with 10 infantrymen killed one of Pancho Villa’s personal bodyguards. Like the national guardsmen patrolling the border, Pershing’s forces

Mexican War Veterans settled in for humdrum duty amid the arid Mexican terrain. Although Villa would never be captured, the U.S. Army gained invaluable experience from this expedition. The army utilized motor trucks to supply its troops when the Mexican government refused access to the local railroads. Uniforms that proved to be inadequate for the harsh Mexican climate were improved. Medical and sanitary conditions of large outdoor camps were refined. Aircraft were used for military reconnaissance for the first time. Finally, the National Guard was reorganized when it was found that many units suffered from inept officers and lack of structure. The lessons learned from the Punitive Expedition served the army well in Europe during World War I. In February 1917, American forces withdrew back into the United States. Congress authorized the Mexican service badge in December 1917, and the Mexican Border Service Medal was authorized in July 1918 for veterans who patrolled the border but did not enter Mexico. Troops would remain on the border until 1923. Veterans of the Mexican campaigns were eligible to join the Veterans of Foreign Wars. William Whyte III

Further Reading Jore, Jeff. ‘‘Pershing’s Mission in Mexico: Logistics and Preparation for the War in Europe.’’ Military Affairs 52 (July 1988): 117–21. Sandos, James A. ‘‘Pancho Villa and American Security: Woodrow Wilson’s Mexican Diplomacy Reconsidered.’’ Journal of Latin American Studies 13 (November 1981): 293–311.

| 285

Yockelson, Mitchell. ‘‘The United States Armed Forces and the Mexican Punitive Expedition: Part 1.’’Prologue 29 (Fall 1997). www.archives.gov/publications/ prologue/1997/fall/mexican-punitiveexpedition-1.html. ———. ‘‘The United States Armed Forces and the Mexican Punitive Expedition: Part 2.’’Prologue 29 (Winter 1997). www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/ 1997/winter/mexican-punitiveexpedition-2.html.

MEXICAN WAR VETERANS The 1846 war between the United States and Mexico began when U.S. President James K. Polk ordered U.S. troops into an area claimed by both Mexico and the newly annexed Republic of Texas, provoking an exchange of fire that, after a string of impressive military victories by the United States, ultimately led to the occupation of Mexico City by General Winfield Scott’s troops in September 1847. In early 1848 Mexico ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, transferring over half of her territory to the United States in exchange for $15 million. Gone were the provinces of Alta California, Nuevo Mexico, and parts of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Sonora. That land became California, Nevada, and Utah and parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The ratified treaty arrived in the United States on the fourth of July in 1848 to ecstatic celebration. In its first war fought on foreign soil, the United States had won an ‘‘empire,’’ and in the eyes of many U.S. citizens virtually every battle made manifest the heroism and superior fighting abilities of the North American soldier. Volunteer enthusiasm for the war against Mexico

286 |

Mexican War Veterans

was high, particularly outside New England. Victories like that at Buena Vista, where less than 5,000 U.S. soldiers defeated a Mexican army of 20,000, seemed to support the widely held belief that the American volunteer had no equal in skill or bravery, although in point of fact most battles of this war were won by regulars in the army and not by volunteers. Of the 85,000 American soldiers who served in the war between 1846 and 1848, 72,500 of them returned to the United States alive. The twin ideals of the citizen soldier, and of military service as the clearest grounds for citizenship, were firmly grounded in the republican political culture of the early republic, so one might assume that these men would return to a hero’s welcome and would reap the rewards of their sacrifice to the nation. But such was not the case. This was a relatively short war with a number of glorious victories, and it resulted in the United States becoming a continental power. But few groups of veterans in the history of the United States have been as disdained and forgotten as those of the U.S.-Mexico War. When President Polk first declared that Mexican troops had shed ‘‘American blood on American soil,’’ thousands of American men rushed to find adventure and glory in Mexico. But for the most part, service in Mexico was a profoundly alienating experience. The U.S.-Mexico War had both the highest casualty rate (almost 15 percent of soldiers died, almost exclusively from disease) and the highest desertion rate of any American war. While the volunteers were widely lauded in the national press during and immediately after the war, veterans of this conflict returned to a country deeply divided over both the righteousness of

invading and dismembering a weaker neighbor, and the implications of the Mexican territorial cession on the expansion of slavery. In New England, where anti-war fervor was strongest, there was little honeymoon period for these soldiers. Lieutenant William Watts Hart Davis, a wealthy Pennsylvanian who worked to help Massachusetts’ single regiment meet its quota, complained that volunteers in the Bay State were ‘‘slandered and vilified daily . . . denounced as murderers and robbers.’’ Many veterans of the war found that they were met with suspicion, both because of the growing unpopularity of the war itself and because of some of their rowdy behavior once they were back home. Veterans of this conflict, like those of other American wars, fought, drank, and failed to find jobs. As early as the summer of 1847, when the first soldiers returned from a yearlong tour of duty, critics complained that service in Mexico had damaged their morals. One of the foremost politicians of the nation, Henry Clay of Kentucky, claimed that many veterans had been disqualified by a ‘‘wild spirit of adventure’’ from returning to civil society. The Civil War, which followed a mere 13 years later, did even greater damage to the reputation and status of U.S.-Mexico War volunteers. Even the most dramatic victories in Mexico paled in comparison to the epic engagements of the Civil War, and the accomplishments of the veterans of 1846 were likewise diminished. One ‘‘engineer officer’’ struck a tellingly apologetic tone when he recounted the battle of Buena Vista for a newspaper in 1871, offering his account ‘‘with some hesitation, because this battle, which appeared to us and to the country as of such great importance at the time, is

Mexican War Veterans now dwarfed into insignificance by the giant struggle of these later days.’’ Veterans of the Civil War certainly shared this opinion: the Grand Army of the Republic had little time for veterans of the earlier war, unless, of course, they fought for the North in the 1860s as well. In fact, a large number of veterans of the Mexican conflict hailed from the South, where volunteer enthusiasm was highest. These men, including, notably, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee, later fought for the Confederacy. Southerners embraced the U.S.-Mexico War in the hope that it might bring new slave territories into the nation. They were wrong, of course, and in the minds of many Northerners the entire war was tainted by the proslavery ambitions of many partisans. In 1885 former president Ulysses S. Grant, who like most Civil War generals gained key military experience in the Mexican conflict, described the war with Mexico as ‘‘one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.’’ He declared the Civil War ‘‘our punishment’’ for that ‘‘transgression.’’ At the time this view was mainstream. While Grant had been a member of the pro-war Democratic Party in the 1840s and 1850s, he was a Union general and Republican president and accepted the anti-war Whig Party as his party’s forebears. Although the Democrats promoted and won the war with Mexico, it was a pyrrhic victory for the party, because ultimately the views of Whigs, who maintained that the war was unjust, immoral, and part of a land grab on the part of slaveholders, held sway. The 1847 resolution by the Massachusetts House of Representatives that ‘‘an offensive and unnecessary war is one of the highest crimes which man can commit

| 287

against society; but when is superadded a war for the extension of slavery, its criminality stands out in the boldest possible relief’’ had become the reigning belief among the reigning political party of the postbellum period. Veterans of this ‘‘criminal’’ conflict found themselves reviled as a result and forced to organize to receive the benefits and recognition they thought their due. After the War of 1812 veterans were awarded pensions of $8 a month in 1871, California printer (and veteran) Alexander M. Kenaday founded the National Association of Veterans of the Mexican War (NAVMW) in Washington, DC. The group’s first national convention was held in 1874. Under Kenaday’s leadership, the association held yearly meetings of veterans, published The Vedette, a newspaper for and about Mexican War veterans, and above all else lobbied Congress for pensions. Kenaday held the position of secretary in the NAVMW from 1874 until his death in 1897. By the end of the 1870s, U.S.-Mexico War veteran groups were meeting on a regular basis in 13 states, from California to Louisiana to Massachusetts, and over 5,000 veterans applied to receive one of the National Association’s official badges by 1893. But the lobbying organization was notably less successful than the Grand Army of the Republic on which it was modeled. For 13 years U.S.-Mexico War veterans were thwarted by northern Republicans who pointed to the presence of former confederates among the surviving veterans and denounced the pension bill as ‘‘a southern war claim.’’ After Jefferson Davis renounced any personal benefit that might result from the passage of a pension act, Congress finally relented, and the Mexican War Service Pension

288 |

Mexican War Veterans

Franklin Pierce’s military record during the Mexican War became a campaign issue when he ran for president in 1852. In the left frame, ‘‘New Hampshire,’’ Pierce trains a band of volunteer militia, but when he arrives in battle, ‘‘Mexico,’’ the right frame, he holds his stomach in pain and says he has to resign. [American cartoon print filing series, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-7184]

Act was signed into law on January 29, 1887. By the end of that year there were a little more than 8,000 recipients on the pension rolls. The number of recipients reached its peak in 1890 when more than 17,000 veterans and more than 6,000 widows were on the rolls. The amount of the pension was $8 a month. After the turn of the century, this amount was raised to $12, later to $20. After the passage of the pension act, membership in the NAVMW began to decline, and the organization had trouble maintaining itself. After Kenaday’s death in 1897, the NAVMW effectively ceased to exist, although veterans continued to hold national meetings until 1910. The passage of the Mexican War Service Pension Act neither resulted from, nor caused, an increase in the status of the veterans. In the late-nineteenth century these men were more often charged

in pension abuse expose´s than were soldiers from other wars. Efforts by the veterans to erect a national monument and to preserve battlefields in Texas were also blocked by Congress in the 1880s and 1890s. Ambivalence about both the causes and outcomes of the 1846 war was fairly widespread during this period, even among the veterans themselves. On the rare occasions when veterans spoke publicly about the war they generally adopted a defensive tone—still attempting to justify the war decades after its successful conclusion. In an address on the topic of ‘‘the Rationale of the Mexican War,’’ to the Illinois Association of Mexican Veterans at Peoria, in 1880, Judge E. S. Holbrook, a lieutenant in the first Illinois volunteers, reassured his audience that ‘‘no honest patriot’’ need ‘‘blush for the part he took’’ in the war ‘‘as a volunteer’’ since ‘‘not only did the

Mexican War Veterans attempt to make this new acquired territory, slave territory, fail, but this same new territory has been one of the grand forces that have destroyed slavery where it was before; and so now all is free.’’ Although he admitted that there were still many minds ‘‘biased’’ against the veterans, ‘‘I think it is true that a general good to the human race has grown out of the Mexican war, notwithstanding the then present local evils attending it.’’ By the end of the nineteenth century, however, one might imagine that those aged veterans of the U.S.-Mexico War would be ripe for veneration and public embrace. The final decades of the century were a period of national reconciliation and reunion, as Northerners romanticized the Old South and both sides attempted to find common ground in the aftermath of the Civil War. Veterans of the U.S.-Mexico War took part in the ‘‘swelling refrain for harmonious reunion,’’ pointing to the 1840s as a period when, in the words of veteran Gideon Pillow ‘‘We knew no North, no South.’’ Veterans upheld their war as one of a common united purpose and sacrifice. But even on the fiftieth anniversary of the successful conclusion of the U.S. -Mexico War, in 1898, there was little celebration of the surviving veterans of that war. Some states celebrated their own semi-centennials in 1896 or 1898, but the war itself was largely ignored in these ceremonies. The fiftieth anniversary of Buena Vista came and went without either local or national fanfare. Although 1898 saw a second war for empire in the Western Hemisphere, against Spain, most Americans still preferred to forget about the violence that led to the conquest of California. The NAVMW was not the only veterans’ organization to emerge from the

| 289

war. The Aztec Club, an elite social club which originally limited its membership to officers of the U.S.-Mexico War and their eldest sons, was started by seven officers in Mexico City on October 3, 1847, during the extended occupation of that city by Winfield Scott’s army. After the withdrawal of the army from Mexico, the members of the club reorganized as a hereditary society which would meet in the United States once a year for dinner, with the intended purpose of preserving and honoring the war and continuing the social bonds the officers had formed in Mexico. Club members included Ulysses S. Grant, George McClellan, Winfield Scott Hancock, P. G. T. Beauregard, Robert E. Lee, and James Longstreet. The Aztec Club is still active today, although it has long since extended membership to blood relations of officers nominated by current members. Pennsylvanian Owen Thomas Edgar, the last surviving veteran of the U.S. -Mexico War, died in 1929. But another group continues to uphold the memory of the veterans. The Descendants of Mexican War Veterans (DMWV), chartered by the state of Texas in 1989, is a nonprofit lineage society of over 500 members that has declared itself heir to the now defunct National Association of Veterans of the Mexican War. The group’s mission is to help commemorate the ‘‘heroes of 1846,’’ and it states, America’s U.S.-Mexico War soldiers ‘‘have no national monument and to this very day, nearly 11,000 U.S. servicemen still lie buried in forgotten, neglected graves all over Mexico (as well as parts of the American Southwest). Only a few individual states and organizations have erected monuments or memorials to their memory’’ (DMWV). This organization has arguably had greater success than

290 |

Military Chaplains Association

the NAVMW. Although the earlier association always hoped to establish a site of national commemoration, it wasn’t until 1992, after lobbying by the DMWV, that an act of Congress created the Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site. Amy S. Greenberg

Further Reading Breithaupt, Richard H. Aztec Club of 1847 Military Society of the Mexican War: Sesquicentennial—History, 1847–1997. Universal City, CA: Walika, 1998. Davies, Wallace E. ‘‘The Mexican War Veterans as an Organized Group.’’ The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 35, no. 2 (September 1948): 221–38. Descendents of Mexican War Veterans. www.dmwv.org/index.htm. Foos, Paul. A Short Offhand Killing Affair: Soldiers and Social Conflict during the Mexican-American War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant. New York: Charles Webster and Co., 1885. Pinheiro, John C. Manifest Ambition: James K. Polk and Civil-Military Relations during the Mexican War. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007.

MILITARY CHAPLAINS ASSOCIATION The Military Chaplains Association exists to aid military chaplains in their mission of providing religious support to military personnel. Founded in 1925, the association is composed of chaplains from the active, reserve, and National Guard forces, former and retired chaplains, as well as chaplains from the Civil Air Patrol and Department of Veterans

Affairs. Associate memberships are available to military and civilian personnel who desire to support the chaplaincy’s mission. The association began in 1925 as the Army Chaplains Association and functioned as an informal advisory group to its founder, the first Army Chief of Chaplains, John Axton. By the 1930s, the group held annual conventions and produced the magazine The Army Chaplain. In 1940, it expanded to include navy chaplains, becoming the Army and Navy Chaplains Association. Upon the entrance of air force chaplains in 1948, the group was renamed the Military Chaplains Association (MCA), and in 1950 was incorporated as a federally chartered organization. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the association faced financial and membership struggles. In the 1990s, it responded by concerted efforts to increase membership, establish and maintain trust funds, such as its Emerson Foundation, expand regional chapters, and increase the effectiveness of its annual conventions to obtain publicity and recruits. The MCA joined the Association of the Independent Charities of America Inc., the Combined Federal Campaign, and the National Veterans Day Committee as well as increased its presence by lobbying Capitol Hill on chaplain-related issues. Today the association provides veterans with an active role in supporting the mission of the military chaplaincy. It provides chaplains, religious leaders, and media outlets with information regarding religious freedom issues of free exercise and free speech. The group fosters public awareness of chaplaincy issues by lobbying members of Congress on issues of religious freedom, participating in religious forums with faith group

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) communities, and providing educational outreaches to military, civilian, and religious leadership. Through the publication of a bimonthly magazine, The Military Chaplain, and annual meetings, the association informs members of issues facing the chaplaincy and provides them with a professional forum for peer discussion. At the annual meeting, the association honors both civilian and military personnel for their important contributions to the welfare of active and veteran members of the armed forces. The association supports the development of the chaplain branch by providing annual scholarships awarded to several chaplain candidates enrolled in seminary and by giving annual recognition to chaplains for distinguished service. The association provides counsel on issues of religious expression, assists with the mobilization and demobilization process, and provides chaplain services to needed areas. Through participation in the 36member Military Coalition of service organizations, the group remains committed to providing support to and maintaining awareness of veterans’ issues that affect over 5.5 million current and former service members and their families. Association members provide support and play a role in the Department of Veterans Affairs chaplaincy. Partnering with the Veterans Administraton, the MCA seeks to provide both spiritual and emotional help to service members who return home without a support network. Group members also focus their efforts on the growing number of veterans who are suffering from combat stress or posttraumatic stress disorder. To accomplish these missions, the group promotes the concept of ‘‘Chaplain for Life’’ to encourage retired chaplains to continue their ministry through volunteer

| 291

outreaches and mentoring younger chaplains. The MCA networks its members with areas of chaplain need by maintaining a database of over 8,000 former and current chaplains. When active duty personnel are unavailable, members fill in to provide support, ranging from counseling to funeral duty. Through such outreaches, the MCA seeks to continue and expand the availability of moral, ethical, and religious support to current and former members of the armed forces. Jonathan Newell

Further Reading Military Chaplains Association. www .mca-usa.org. The Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America. Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing, 1996.

MILITARY ORDER OF THE LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES (MOLLUS) The Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) was an organization created in the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s death on April 15, 1865, when three Union officers met in Philadelphia to discuss the tragedy of the event. The original three served as part of the honor guard for Lincoln’s funeral. After the funeral, the officers decided to form MOLLUS to renew patriotism for the Union. MOLLUS was originally an organization composed of commissioned Union officers designed to serve as the Civil War equivalent of the Society of the Cincinnati. At its height, MOLLUS boasted almost 12,000 officers as members,

292 |

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS)

including many prominent Union Civil War veterans, such as Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and future presidents Rutherford B. Hayes, and William McKinley. With the aging of eligible members, MOLLUS eventually opened up its membership to male descendants of Union officers. The fame of MOLLUS caused John Philip Sousa to write a march to commemorate the twentyfifth anniversary of the founding of MOLLUS, entitled The Loyal Legion March. The objectives of MOLLUS are ‘‘to foster military and naval science, promote allegiance to the U.S. government, perpetuate the memory of those who fought to preserve the unity and indivisibility of the Republic and to honor the memory and promote the ideals of President Abraham Lincoln’’ (MOLLUS). To achieve its objectives, MOLLUS participates in a wide variety of activities. These include programming honoring Lincoln and those who served during the Civil War, preservation efforts for Civil War battlefields and sites, awards for Civil War research and writing, erecting plaques and other memorials to commemorate events and personalities of the war, and other patriotic and educational activities (see Battlefield Preservation). Many original members of MOLLUS were also members of the Grand Army of the Republic. Similarly, current MOLLUS members are often members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW). MOLLUS currently is organized into 19 commanderies, as well as two provisional commanderies. In addition, MOLLUS has posted many of its War Papers on the Internet. These are written accounts of the Civil War by those who served in the war and

are being digitized by Google. These papers serve as a valuable online repository of firsthand accounts of the war for historians and other researchers. MOLLUS also publishes a newsletter for its members. Additionally, the organization founded and operates the War Library and Museum of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States on Pine Street in Philadelphia and serves a valuable purpose both as an organization for descendants of Union officers as well as an educational group for the story of the Civil War. In 1899, 51 wives and daughters of Union officers formed the Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States (DOLLUS), although MOLLUS did not officially recognize it until 1915. Among its achievements have been the restoration of the room in which President Lincoln died, in the Peterson House opposite Ford’s Theater in Washington, DC, and the planting of 54 oak trees around Grant’s Cabin in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. Grant asked to have his headquarters cabin moved from City Point, Virginia, where he had directed the final successful campaign of the war, to Philadelphia to honor its citizens for their loyal support. With 311 trees, it is now the largest memorial grove in the nation. Daniel Sauerwein

Further Reading Anonymous. Companions of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. New York: L. R. Hamersly, 1901. Daughters of the Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. www.suvcw.org/ mollus/dollus.home.htm. Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. www.suvcw.org/mollus/ mollus.htm.

Music and Veterans

MUSIC AND VETERANS Music about veterans can be patriotic music or wartime songs as well, but not all patriotic or war music is necessarily about veterans. Since humans first went to war, they have written songs describing, honoring, and often mourning the sacrifice that veterans endure, the horrors they face on the battlefield, and their experiences when they return home. Music about veterans can be a celebration of patriotism, but it can also often be among the most famous of protest music. The response to veterans’ stories and sacrifice can be as varied as the range of political opinions, immortalized in song by genres from folk to country to pop to metal to American Indian powwow music and black spirituals.

Civil War In the United States, the first veterans’ songs were traditional folk tunes, often influenced by older songs from Europe, or by chants sung by African slaves. The most famous, ‘‘John Brown’s Body,’’ later also widely known as ‘‘Battle Hymn of the Republic,’’ has variously been claimed to have come originally from a black folk song, a black wedding song, a British sea chantey, or a Swedish drinking song. As ‘‘John Brown’s Body,’’ the song is primarily a call for the religious faithful to fulfill Brown’s mission to free the slaves and ‘‘hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree.’’ As ‘‘Battle Hymn,’’ it declares that the cause of the Union is blessed by God as it proclaims ‘‘the glory of the coming of the Lord.’’ The Civil War produced an enormous number of veterans’ songs. The most celebrated of Civil War songwriters, George Root, wrote ‘‘Tramp, Tramp, Tramp,’’

| 293

told from the point of view of a POW in a Confederate prison, writing to his mother of the day when he can return home and the war is won. ‘‘Just Before the Battle Mother’’ also includes a message to home, this time a soldier telling his mother to remember him and the rightness of the Union cause should he fall in battle. ‘‘The Vacant Chair’’ is the tale of a Union soldier’s family remembering a soldier killed on the battlefield. By contrast, Patrick Gilmore’s ‘‘When Johnny Comes Marching Home’’ is a rousing celebration of a Southern veteran, ‘‘Johnny Reb,’’ returning home after a predicted triumph. It has therefore been used ironically after the war, most notably in the film satire Dr. Strangelove. The war also brought an outpouring of a number of other sentimental or mournful songs of returning veterans, among them ‘‘Weeping Sad and Lonely (When This Cruel War Is Over).’’ Other songs mourned the loss of life and soldiers killed in the war, such as ‘‘All Quiet Along the Potomac,’’ ‘‘The Drummer Boy of Shiloh,’’ and ‘‘The Faded Coat of Blue.’’ The two ethnic groups that made up the greatest portion of the Union volunteers during the Civil War, blacks and German-Americans, each contributed veterans’ songs. ‘‘Babylon Is Fallen’’ is a former slave’s celebration of the fall of plantation slavery, seeing his former master taken prisoner by black soldiers and losing his seat of power during Reconstruction. ‘‘Kingdom Come (Year of Jubilo)’’ goes even further, with exslaves mocking their former masters as cowards. The most famous GermanAmerican song of the war, ‘‘I Goes to Fight Mit Siegel,’’ Franz Siegel being the leading German-American general for the North, was a rallying cry for both

294 |

Music and Veterans

The sheet music for this march dedicated to the Grand Army of the Republic, deposited in the Library of Congress in 1869, shows scenes of veterans at home and on the field and women honoring veterans. [Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LCUSZ62-89300]

German Union soldiers and veterans after war’s end.

American Indians Of all ethnic groups in the United States, American Indians joining the U.S. military likely produced the highest number of veterans’ songs, based on long traditions of honoring warriors which were transferred to newer veterans’ traditions. The first Native American veteran song we have a written record of is Joseph

Gauthier’s ‘‘Song of Enlistment,’’ describing members of the Menominee joining the Union Army in the Civil War. World War II saw an explosion of American Indian Honor Songs for veterans. There was even an ‘‘Honor Song for General MacArthur’’ referred to in the song by his Indian name, ‘‘Wise Eagle.’’ Probably the best-known songs from American Indians during the war come from the best-known American Indian veterans, the Navajo Code Talkers (see American Indian Veterans,

Music and Veterans Individuals). They produced their own versions of both ‘‘The Marine Corps Hymn’’ and ‘‘America the Beautiful,’’ sung in the Dineh language. Honor songs continued to be composed by Native veterans and their families through the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars. The most recent honor song we have a public record of, ‘‘Honor Song for Sheldon Ray Hawk Eagle,’’ is a Lakota (Sioux) song about a soldier from the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation dying in the Iraq War, written by his cousin Winona Washburn. Both the Black Lodge Singers and Lakota Thunder, two favorites on the powwow circuit, have recorded entire albums devoted to American Indian veterans’ experiences. Some tribes have warrior societies or women’s societies that are in large part dedicated to reintegrating veterans into civilian life, including by the use of honor songs. Among the best known are the Kiowa Black Legs, Gourd Dance Societies common to many of the tribes of the Plains and the Southwest, or the War Mothers Societies among the Kiowa, Comanche, Osage, Otoe, Ponca, and other tribes.

Country Music Mainstream Americans also developed songs honoring veterans, notably in country music. Country music arose from both the folk ballad and country blues. A central part of much country music has been patriotic concerns, often against what many of its fans perceive as liberal or upper-middle-class elitism. The largest collection of country music devoted to veterans came in the album A Country Music Offering for a Moment of Silence for Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans (1996) from artists Kenny Rogers, John Akers, John Anderson, Barbara

| 295

Mandrell, Johnny Paycheck, Dolly Parton, David Houston, and the Oakridge Boys. These Colors Won’t Run (1996) also combined patriotism and tributes to veterans with songs from Bobby Bare, Freddie Hart, Jeff Moore, B. J. Thomas, Craig Harris, Moe Bandy, Billy Parker, Charley Pride, Billy Walker, Johnny Paycheck, Riders In the Sky/Michael Horton, The Kendalls, Johnny Rodriguez, and Stan Garland. Country music singer Toby Keith is also noted for his patriotic songs such as ‘‘American Soldier’’ (2002) and ‘‘Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue’’ (2004). Yet country music also is responsible for its share of rebellious and controversial material, works that often predated the emphasis on patriotism after 9/11. It produced both ‘‘Okie From Muskogee’’ and ‘‘The Fightin’ Side of Me’’ from Merle Haggard with its defense of the flag from anti-war protesters; yet also from country music came the ‘‘Ballad of Ira Hayes,’’ one of the soldiers depicted in the Iwo Jima Memorial, with its searing indictment of unjust treatment of the American Indian veteran in American history. It was recorded by Oliver Lafarge and later Johnny Cash and Floyd Redcrow Westerman. Both Haggard and Cash would later pen anti-war songs that were also about soldiers and veterans: Haggard’s ‘‘That’s the News’’ and Cash with ‘‘What Is Truth’’ and ‘‘Man In Black.’’ Cash also wrote ‘‘Drive On’’ and ‘‘Like a Soldier,’’ both about a Vietnam War veteran’s alienation. Willie Nelson’s ‘‘Whatever Happened to Peace on Earth’’ combined criticism of the Second Iraq War with a song about veterans and the celebration of Christmas. Steve Earle and the Dixie Chicks both faced a wave of criticism, boycotts, and even death threats for their stance on the

296 |

Music and Veterans

Iraq War. In Earle’s case, his song about an American who fought for the other side, the Taliban, in ‘‘John Walker Blues’’ brought a ban from radio. Yet Earle has probably written more songs about veterans’ concerns than any musician in modern memory, among them ‘‘The Gringo’s Tale’’ about a veteran of Grenada and Panama; ‘‘Home to Houston’’ about an army truck driver in Iraq; ‘‘Copperhead Road’’ about a Vietnam veteran turned drug smuggler; ‘‘Warrior’’ a spoken word performance piece from a veteran’s point of view; ‘‘Rich Man’s War’’ about men in poverty driven to join the military (including in Arab countries) and coming home as poor as before they joined; ‘‘Ben McCullough’’ about a bitter Confederate veteran; ‘‘Dixieland’’ about an Irish immigrant Union veteran; ‘‘Johnny Come Lately’’ about a San Antonio veteran marrying a British woman; and ‘‘Mercenary Song’’ about American veterans looking to join up with Pancho Villa. The Dixie Chicks faced a corporate CEO-ordered campaign directed against them—from Lewis Dickey Jr., CEO of Cumulus Radio, which controls the leading country music stations in the United States—but still wrote and recorded ‘‘Travelin’ Soldier’’ about a young girl mourning her boyfriend’s death in the Vietnam War.

Folk Music Probably no genre of music is better known for producing protest songs than folk music, and war and veterans have been the subject of many famous folk songs. Folk icon Woody Guthrie paid tribute to those lost on a U.S. destroyer in ‘‘Sinking of the Reuben James,’’ later released as ‘‘Dear Mr. President.’’ Pete Seeger redid the Irish folk song ‘‘Mrs. McGrath,’’ the story of a mother

describing the return of her badly scarred veteran son. Bruce Springsteen also recorded a version of the song. Bob Dylan’s ‘‘John Brown’’ depicts a returning veteran, now missing his eyes and hands, who castigates his mother for once urging him to enlist and be a war hero. The song ends with him accusing her of cowardice and throwing his medals at her feet.

Popular Music Within pop music, examples from the post-World War II era include the Shirelles’s ‘‘Soldier Boy,’’ a simple love song about a girl’s devotion. Bobby Vinton’s ‘‘Mr. Lonely’’ is about a soldier feeling isolated and forgotten. The best-known pop song about veterans is Marvin Gaye’s ‘‘What’s Going On.’’ Inspired by his brother’s return from the Vietnam War, Gaye simultaneously mourned the pain experienced by veterans and issued a heartfelt call for understanding and peace. Perhaps the second best-known pop song about veterans is Bruce Springsteen’s ‘‘Born in the USA’’ about a Vietnam War veteran unable to find work. Many conservatives of the time misinterpreted the song to be unambiguous patriotism, most notably President Ronald Reagan. Springsteen would write about hardships of returning veterans again in ‘‘Ballad of Tom Joad.’’ Green Day’s ‘‘Wake Me Up When September Ends’’ was originally a wistful look at the death of a band member’s father. The lyrics (and subsequent video) are ambiguous enough that many interpreted the song to either be a tribute to those lost in the terrorist attacks on September 11 or a tribute to members of the military deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Carrie Underwood’s ‘‘Just a Dream’’ tells the

Music and Veterans story of an exuberant young woman going to church to wed her military love who is home from the war; when she arrives she is instead at his funeral. Metal music, with its often brutal choice of subject matter, has not shied away from depicting the horror of combat and the pain endured by survivors. Alice in Chains’s ‘‘Rooster’’ was written about the singer’s father returning from the Vietnam War, though it did make the mistake of repeating the urban legend of spat-upon veterans. Slayer’s ‘‘Mandatory Suicide’’ was about a drafted soldier while ‘‘Eyes of the Insane’’ depicts in graphic detail the horror of a veteran suffering from trauma. Metallica’s ‘‘One,’’ itself inspired by the Dalton Trumbo novel, Johnny Get Your Gun (1938), depicts a quadriplegic and suicidal veteran of World War I. Two other Metallica songs, ‘‘Disposable Heroes’’ and ‘‘For Whom the Bell Tolls,’’ are both songs about veterans and anti-war songs simultaneously. Ironically, very few of the songs described above have come from actual veterans, whether intended to be patriotic or anti-war songs. One of the more recent songs to break with that trend is Iraq War

| 297

veteran Dennis Kyne’s ‘‘Support the Truth.’’ Paralyzed Iraq War veteran Tomas Young also produced Body of War: Songs That Inspired an Iraq War Veteran (2008) with music from Pearl Jam, System of a Down, John Lennon, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Waits, and Roger Waters. Al Carroll See also Civil War Veterans; World War I Veterans; World War II Veterans; Anti-War Veterans Associations; Vietnam Veterans Against the War; Film and Veterans; Literature and Veterans

Further Reading Cornelius, Steven H. Music of the Civil War Era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004. Jones, John Bush. Songs that Fought the War: Popular Music and the Homefront, 1939– 1945. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2006. Perone, James. Songs of the Vietnam Conflict. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 2001. Tatum, James. The Mourner’s Song: Songs of War and Remembrance from the Iliad to the Vietnam War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

This page intentionally left blank

N participated, or who served as above in connection with the Revenue or Privateer Services’’ and their descendants. Initially only officers could join the Order, but since 1998 the Naval Order allows enlisted personnel to become members (Naval Order 2003, 8–9). The Order’s structure has changed little since its founding. Local chapters, or commanderies, are formed in various cities and states throughout the country. These local commanderies elect delegates to attend the General Congress, which is the primary venue for Naval Order business. The General Congress met triennially until 1963 and biennially until 1988 when meetings finally became an annual event. At the General Congress, the local delegates elect national officeholders including the Order’s chief executive known as the commander general as well as other positions, such as the historian general. The national officeholders also comprise the General Council which manages Naval Order business while the General Congress is not in session; however,

NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS See American Indian Veterans

NAVAJO CODE TALKERS See American Indian Veterans, Individual

NAVAL ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES Founded in 1890 as the Naval Commandery in Boston, the Naval Order of the United States adopted its present name and grew into a national organization three years later when it merged with a like-minded group, the Naval Legion. Its founders intended the Naval Order to be an apolitical forum for veterans and other interested individuals to gather and discuss issues related to naval history. Eligibility for membership was initially based upon service ‘‘in any of the wars or in any battle in which the United States Navy or Marine Corps has 299

300 |

Naval Order of the United States

the council’s importance has diminished somewhat as the General Congresses have become more frequent although they proved vital in holding the Order’s elections when its 2005 General Congress in New Orleans fell victim to the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina. The Order has included several notable naval figures on its membership rolls since its founding, including James V. Forrestal and other secretaries of the navy, Arleigh Burke and other chiefs of Naval Operations, World War II era figures such as William F. Halsey, and former presidents Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush. Hollywood actor and naval veteran Ernest Borgnine is also a companion of the Naval Order. Most importantly to the Order itself, Admiral George Dewey joined the organization just two weeks after his victory at the Battle of Manila Bay during the Spanish-American War on May 1, 1898. Admiral Dewey later served as the Order’s commander general from 1907 until his death in 1917. The Order grew rapidly in its early years, and by 1900 had established local commanderies in six states. A period of stagnation and decline followed this rapid growth, and for a time the Naval Order shrank down to only three functioning commanderies during the 1920s: Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. Following World War II, however, the Order began a new round of expansion later followed by the creation of several new commanderies since the 1970s. As of 2008, the Naval Order has 25 commanderies scattered across the country although most of these are in coastal areas. Since its founding, the Naval Order has counted more than 8,500 men and women as companions.

Indicative of the era of its founding which saw the frequent use of history to promote contemporary naval policy, the Order’s founders intended the group to function as a forum for veterans to discuss naval history and help promote it to others. The Naval Order’s interest in preserving and commemorating America’s naval history has been the organization’s most significant activity. Early meetings of the Order were often scheduled to coincide with significant dates in American naval history; in addition, the Order sought to raise public awareness of important naval engagements, such as the duel between the Monitor and Virginia (better known as the Merrimac) in the Civil War, by sending copies of a description of the engagement to all Congressmen in 1898. During the interwar period, the Naval Order began to emphasize the construction of permanent historical monuments. In 1926, Herbert Satterlee proposed that the Order raise funds to construct a bust of Admiral Farragut to be placed in the Hall of Fame at New York University. Although the plans nearly fell through, a last minute appeal for funds made by New York University placed in the New York Times allowed the Order to dedicate the bust in 1927 on schedule. Perhaps the most significant evidence of the Order’s commitment to preserving the navy’s history prior to World War II came in its participation in the drive to restore the USS Constitution in the 1920s. After the ship began to decay following its decommissioning in 1882, an effort known as the Save ‘‘Old Ironsides’’ Fund began with a goal of completely restoring the Constitution with an eye towards its public display. In order to solicit contributions for the fund, the Naval Order included in a 1927 booklet

Naval Order of the United States | 301 information about the ship’s history as well as a request for donations from companions. The booklet contained other information about the Naval Order, including its history and portions of its own constitution, and it is not known how much the Order or its companions contributed to the restoration drive. That said, the Constitution became a popular public attraction after its recommissioning in 1931 and continues to be one to this day, drawing over 300,000 visitors annually. Despite its emphasis on the indirect promotion of the navy through history, the Order has at times engaged in more direct commentary or influence upon American naval policy. These instances have generally occurred at critical moments of American national or naval policy. Lieutenant Commander John Codman Soley and Satterlee, two early members of the Naval Order, were instrumental in the creation of naval militias in the decade prior to the SpanishAmerican War. These militias, formed in 15 states, became the primary naval auxiliary in the late-nineteenth century, contributing ships and over 4,000 men to the navy during the SpanishAmerican War. Though they did not fulfill their intended function of providing a viable manpower base for the navy, they eventually formed the nucleus of the Naval Reserve Force created in 1917. Its most significant attempt to directly affect American naval policy came in 1902 when Satterlee again helped found the Navy League of the United States. In fact, 12 of the 15 men who signed the League’s articles of incorporation in December 1902 were also current companions of the Naval Order. Little formal connection existed between the two

organizations in spite of the dual membership of some individuals, although the Naval Order did provide financial compensation to the League in exchange for managing the Order’s records in the early 1900s. The Navy League of the United States, modeled after the Navy League in Great Britain, assumed its primary responsibility of public lobbying on behalf of the navy. The League would include former naval officers and interested civilians in its membership rolls but not officers on active duty since the latter wished to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by either the public or other veterans groups such as the Grand Army of the Republic. Although the League’s effect on American naval policy is often overstated, historian Armin Rappaport concluded that the League proved effective in spreading the navy’s message to the public and vital in keeping navalism alive during the drawdown of the interwar period. The Naval Order also attempted to counteract the disinterest in continued naval construction during the interwar period. In 1921, widespread beliefs that naval arms races and the resulting alliance system had caused World War I resulted in the Washington Conference. At the conference, Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes successfully lobbied for a comprehensive series of disarmament and collective security agreements, most notably the Five Power Treaty which helped set the infamous ‘‘5-5-3’’ ratio of capital ship tonnage between the United States, Britain, and Japan. The Washington treaties and their successors meant that arms limitation became perhaps the strongest influence on the development of the navy in the decades prior to World War II.

302 |

Naval Order of the United States

Following the conference, widespread criticism of the treaty erupted from supporters of the navy, most notably retired Captain Dudley W. Knox, who criticized the apparent zeal with which the political leadership squandered America’s impending naval superiority over Great Britain. The Naval Order, however, did not resolve to criticize publicly the results of the conference; rather, they instead passed a resolution calling for the United States to build up to the tonnage limits set by the Five Power Treaty and sent this resolution to the secretary of the navy. While even supporters of the treaty, most notably Captain (later Admiral) William Veazie Pratt, also argued for construction up to the treaty limits, the parsimonious Republican administrations of the 1920s ignored such requests. Not until the first term of the Franklin Roosevelt administration was additional support for naval construction forthcoming, but the navy only filled its treaty tonnage quotas in the years just prior to World War II. The Naval Order also nearly became involved in the controversies which eventually came to a head during the socalled ‘‘Revolt of the Admirals’’ in 1949. The dispute originated in the postwar debates over the roles and missions of the different branches of the military as well as the status of America’s nuclear arsenal. The crisis came to a head when Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson canceled the United States’ first flush deck just days after the laying of its keel in favor of renewed emphasis on air force heavy bombers such as the B-36 Peacemaker. Senior naval officers, incensed that they had lost their carrier capable of launching nuclear equipped aircraft, began launching private and public attacks against the air force which

eventually led to the resignation of Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan and the dismissal of Chief of Naval Operations Louis Denfeld. A year prior to the Revolt of the Admirals, the Naval Order nearly became involved in a protest against Secretary of the Air Stuart Symington. Members of other organizations believed criticisms made by Symington against the navy during the course of these debates represented a malicious attack on the service and attempted to mount a protest. Robert E. McCord of the Navy Council solicited the Order’s support for a round robin letter which refuted statements made by Symington against the navy. The Order’s Commander General William A. Read declined to participate in any such action, believing that the letter could undermine Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, a former naval officer, and had the potential to only inflame the situation further. In the late 1970s, the Naval Order attempted to respond to nuclear disarmament. President Jimmy Carter attempted to continue the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) process begun by the Nixon administration, and in 1979 agreed to terms with the Soviet Union on the SALT II Treaty. While the first SALT Treaty only placed limits on current and future American and Soviet and nuclear arsenals, SALT II called for both superpowers to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals. Unfortunately for the Carter administration, the SALT II Treaty came at a time when the de´tente between the two nations began to crumble due to controversial Third World proxy wars. The Naval Order passed a resolution stating its opposition to the treaty at its 1979 General Congress in Buffalo and initiated a letter-writing campaign to

Naval Order of the United States | 303 congressmen in an attempt to prevent its ratification. Several high-profile senators, including John Tower (R-TX), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Jesse Helms (R-NC), received letters and sent favorable replies to the Order’s Commander General Captain Fred Kempe. Republican Representative Eldon Rudd of Arizona responded quite favorably to the Order’s letter. He inserted the text of the Order’s resolution into the Congressional Record and stated his concurrence with it. While it is impossible to state what, if any, effects the Order’s letters had upon the growing opposition to the SALT II Treaty in Congress, the treaty appeared likely to languish in Congress before President Carter’s decision to withdraw it from consideration after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. These attempts to initiate direct action on behalf of the navy notwithstanding, the Order’s efforts to promote the navy indirectly through history are more typical of its activities since its founding. In fact, the Order has continued to promote naval history through a variety of means in recent decades. In 1970, the Order began sponsoring the creation of ‘‘navy corners’’ in public libraries which contained books on naval history. The New York Commandery created the Samuel Eliot Morison Award in 1982, giving it each year to authors who have published a significant book on naval history. The first award went to its namesake posthumously although Morison’s daughter accepted the award on his behalf. More recently, the San Francisco Commandery in 1999 began publishing a newsletter entitled Mission: History designed to call further attention to the history of the navy. Unfortunately, this newsletter

ceased publication in 2001 as its primary author, Ric Teague, was dying of cancer. The Order has also increased its support for the construction of naval monuments since the 1970s. In 1973, the Order sponsored the creation of a bronze relief of Admiral Dewey at Battery Park in New York City. At the 1987 General Congress the Order took up sponsorship of a relief of the Great White Fleet to be placed at the Navy Memorial across from the National Archives Building in Washington, DC. In 1994, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Normandy landings, the San Francisco Commandery dedicated a plaque at the National Liberty Ship Memorial with the SS Jeremiah O’Brien on the San Francisco piers (see Appendix I, California). The Texas Commandery dedicated a memorial to the heavy cruiser USS Houston in its namesake city in 1995 commemorating that ship’s loss at the Battle of the Java Sea during the disastrous opening months of World War II. Recently, the Order raised funds to create a monument honoring the U.S. Navy’s participation in the Normandy invasion. The memorial was dedicated at its site on Utah Beach on September 27, 2008. Ryan Wadle

Further Reading Hart, Kevin R. ‘‘Towards a Citizen Sailor: The History of the Naval Militia Movement, 1888–1898.’’ American Neptune, October 1973, 264–76. Naval Order of the United States. Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing, 2003, Records of the Naval Order of the United States, Cushing Library, Texas A&M Library, College Station, Texas.

304 |

Newburgh Conspiracy

NEWBURGH CONSPIRACY By late 1782, victory was secure in the American Revolution although the final peace was not yet negotiated and ratified. The Continental Army had to retain some presence to keep the still powerful British Army in New York City in check, which was difficult after the triumph at Yorktown in September 1781. The army officers, many of whom had served for most of the war, had not been paid for four years; many had dipped deeply into their own funds to support themselves, their troops, and junior officers. They were threatening to refuse to disband at the end of the war unless they received all, or at least some, of the half-pay for the rest of their lives Congress had promised them in 1780 to keep them in the service. Congress, however, had no money aside from promissory notes and paper money: unless the states would agree to the impost, a tax on imported goods to be paid in gold or silver, it would lack the power to meet its obligations in any form except relatively worthless paper. General Alexander McDougall and Colonels John Brooks and Matthias Ogden met with Congressional delegates on December 29, 1782, warning them of a mutiny and possible overthrow of the republic if their demands were not met. They found willing listeners in congressmen led by Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to obtain the impost to replace requisitions from the states to fund the bankrupt government and give the federal government the power to tax and fund itself independently of the states. Hamilton and Morris did not want a military coup but found it useful to

encourage the soldiers to voice their threats, thereby hoping to pressure the states into finally accepting Congressional taxation. The officers needed a prestigious leader, however, who commanded wide support in the army. Henry Knox, whom they first approached, turned them down. Horatio Gates did not, and historians to this day debate whether he and his associates were planning to overthrow Congress or intended to confine their efforts to threats that would produce a stronger government that paid them. What is certain, however, is that Alexander Hamilton alerted George Washington that the officers planned a meeting to plot their future course. Washington forbade the meeting, and when it occurred anyway, on March 15, Washington strode in and displaced Horatio Gates as its chairman. He denounced the gathering as ‘‘unmilitary’’ and ‘‘subversive of all order and discipline.’’ He recalled the virtue and selfsacrifice required by a republican people, and reminded the officers that history would judge them based on their actions of that day: by refraining from a coup, ‘‘You will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to Mankind, ‘had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.’ ’’ As he then prepared to read a letter from a congressman promising an attempt to meet the officers’ demands as best as Congress could, Washington reached into his pocket for his spectacles, stating, ‘‘Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind’’ (Ford 1904–1937).

Non-Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA) The attempted coup, if it was that, was over. Washington not only would not be a king, he would not be a military dictator. Many officers rushed to take Washington’s hand and assured him, with tears in their eyes, of their loyalty. The officers then penned a number of addresses, declaring their confidence in Congress and abhorrence of a plot which they themselves had perpetrated. On April 18 Congress commuted the promised half pay for life to five years’ full pay, which the army accepted after the senior officers pressured their juniors that this was their only option. Even this sum was not immediately forthcoming: the best Congress could do was print new promissory notes equal to three months’ pay to enable the officers to return home as the army began to demobilize in June. Congress also referred the impost to the states, but it failed to pass when New York alone refused to assent. Within a month of the conspiracy’s failure, on April 15, General Henry Knox initiated the Society of the Cincinnati so that the officers could maintain their interests within the structure of American society. Yet what the soldiers looked upon as a reasonable, restrained means of ensuring they received justice, many of their countrymen would regard with suspicion as portending that very military government for which it was designed as a legal, republican substitute. William Pencak See also Benefits; Revolutionary War Veterans

Further Reading Ford, Worthington C., et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress 24:306–10. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904–1937.

| 305

Kohn, Richard H. ‘‘The Inside History of the Newburgh Conspiracy: America and the Coup d’E´tat.’’ William and Mary Quarterly (3rd ser.), 27 (1970): 187–220.

NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (NCOA) The Non-Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA) is a congressionally chartered organization with the goal of improving the quality of life for noncommissioned officers and their families of all branches of the armed forces. It was created in 1960 and offers members benefits grouped into three categories: ‘‘Legislative Representation’’ to advocate the interests of noncommissioned officers and their families through the National Capital Office in Alexandria, Virginia; ‘‘Social Improvement Programs’’ to ensure their well-being while in service, in the transition to civilian life, and then in retirement; and finally ‘‘Affinity Programs’’ which obtain discounts for members from participating merchants. NCOA also lobbies Congress on behalf of members to ensure and enhance the quality of life of enlisted personnel in the military. Congress honored the group for its work by granting it a Congressional charter in 1988. Many member benefits fall under the Social Improvement Programs that benefit members and their families. Some benefits include the NCOA Scholarship Fund, which provides a scholarship to members’ children or spouses. In addition, a medical fund, disaster relief fund, and various employment aids exist to assist members and their families in times of need. The Affinity Programs category contains benefits that save

306 |

Non-Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA)

members money. Some benefits include discounts at FedEx, hotel discounts, life insurance, and rental cars, as well as identity theft protection. NCOA has chapters to serve members around the world. The group also recognizes outstanding enlisted cadets in Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) through its award program, which presents deserving cadets with a certificate, ribbon, and medal. Overall, the NCOA provides senior enlisted persons with a great organization

that stands up for their interests and offers helpful benefits to members and their families. Daniel Sauerwein

Further Reading NCOA, Journal of the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, published since 1967. The Non-Commissioned Officers Association. www.ncoausa.org.

O the college newspaper, the Mac Weekly. In 1970—soon after his tour in Vietnam —O’Brien entered graduate school at Harvard University. Undoubtedly inspired by his war experience, he studied government and began a Ph.D. dissertation examining American military interventions. Although he never finished his dissertation, he served as an intern and national affairs reporter for the Washington Post and wrote his first three books during these years. Since 2003, O’Brien has taught regularly in the creative writing program at Texas State University. If O’Brien’s 1973 memoir and 1975 novel Northern Lights were well received critical successes, his 1978 novel, Going After Cacciato established him as a serious and award-winning writer. The novel focuses on Specialist Fourth Class Paul Berlin and his chaotic experiences during the Vietnam War. Berlin engages in an imaginary search with other members of his squad for Private Cacciato, a fellow soldier who has left the war to walk to Paris. The trek is an escape from the

O’BRIEN, TIM (1946–) Tim O’Brien is a Vietnam War veteran and the author of eight books, including his 1973 memoir If I Die in the Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home and his 1978 National Book Awardwinning novel Going After Cacciato. O’Brien was born October 1, 1946, in Austin, Minnesota, where he spent the first 10 years of his life before he and his family moved to nearby Worthington, Minnesota. He was drafted into the U.S. Army in August 1968, where he served a 13-month tour as an infantryman, radio telephone operator, and clerk in the 46th Infantry, 198th Infantry Brigade in Vietnam. He earned a Combat Infantry Badge, Purple Heart, and Bronze Star. Before entering the army, O’Brien received a bachelor’s degree in political science from Macalester College in May 1968. While at Macalester, O’Brien became active in politics as student body president and a supporter of Eugene McCarthy. He also wrote a number of editorials against the Vietnam War for 307

308 |

Oldest Surviving Veterans

horrors of war into fantasy, the only true escape from the absurdity he experiences in battle. Over the next two decades O’Brien became synonymous with the Vietnam War. In 1985, he published The Nuclear Age, a novel whose protagonist is an anti-war veteran of the 1960s who cannot come to terms with his past, Vietnam, and what seems like America’s effort to forget about the war. Although O’Brien’s The Things They Carried (1990) and In the Lake in the Woods (1994) defy easy categorization, both address O’Brien’s broader concerns with the burden of memory and the deep psychological wounds of the war. In the aftermath of a war that cast such a large shadow over American life, O’Brien’s fiction seemed to tap into American anxieties in the post-Vietnam era. Many veterans identified with characters that faced the same dilemmas, challenges, and horrors during the war. At the same time his work gave voice to many disillusioned veterans and resonated powerfully with a generation of Americans ambivalent about the Vietnam War experience. Jeremy K. Saucier See also Literature and Veterans; Vietnam War Veterans

Further Reading O’Brien, Tim. If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home. New York: Broadway Books, 1999. Schulzinger, Robert D. A Time for Peace: The Legacy of the Vietnam War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Smith, Patrick A. Tim O’Brien: A Critical Companion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005.

OLDEST SURVIVING VETERANS The last recorded survivor of the American Revolution was John Gray, who died on March 29, 1868, near Hiramsburg, Ohio. He was born near Mount Vernon, Virginia, on January 6, 1764, and served only two and a half months in the Revolution, which did not entitle him to a pension. He enlisted in July 1781 in Virginia, and returned home following Cornwallis’ surrender that September. He finally received a pension of $500 a year in 1867 by special act of Congress. Other long-lived revolutionary veterans include Lemuel Cook of Clarendon, New York. He died on May 20, 1866, and was born on September 10, 1759, at Plymouth, Connecticut. He was a private in the Second Connecticut Light Dragoons. William Hutchins, born in York, Maine, in 1764, died in Penobscot in that state on May 3, 1866. He participated in the Fourth of July ceremonies in Bangor the year before he died. Daniel Waldo, born in Windham, Connecticut, on September 10, 1762, died on July 30, 1864; he became a Presbyterian clergyman and served as chaplain of Congress in 1855 and 1856. Hiram Cook, born on April 29, 1800, who died on May 13, 1905, was the last surviving veteran of the War of 1812. He was born in Frankfort, New York, and enlisted with his father and two brothers on August 4, 1814. He served in the defense of Sackett’s Harbor and was discharged after three months’ service. He obtained a pension of $12 a month, increased in 1903 to $25, and a special pension of $72 from New York state. He spent most of his life as a shoemaker, and chewed tobacco and drank

Oldest Surviving Veterans | 309 wine until he died. His death and funeral at New York’s City Hall were covered in major newspapers and, as a result, 25,000 people passed his coffin. Owen Thomas Edgar, who was born on June 17, 1831, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and died on September 3, 1929, was the last surviving veteran of the Mexican War. He had served on the frigates USS Potomac and Allegheny during the war, after which he worked as a printer. He lived in Washington, DC, for the last 50 years of his life. Frederi