Those Who Have Borne the Battle by James Wright Read Free Book Online Page A

serve in the War for Independence, and this often led to a greater sense of gratitude to those who did. It reminded those who were too young to have served in the Revolution that they had reason to be grateful—and increasingly that they shared in the responsibility for neglecting the patriots. Although this attitude was usually framed positively, demanding that veterans’ patriotic sacrifice and heroism had to be recognized, it could also take on a deeper meaning. Feelings of shame began to emerge from the widespread image of indigence and suffering of aging veterans. It was only a matter of time before these widely shared feelings crystallized into a new political cause célèbre.

    By the early years of the nineteenth century, both political parties recognized an advantage in affirming their support for the patriotic sacrifice of veterans. Political figures engaged in a debate that would set an enduring American pattern, one in which veterans sometimes became surrogates for partisan views on patriotism and on national defense. In the Adams and Jefferson presidencies, there were great tensions between Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans over readiness for another war with England—or with France. This led to claims and allegations of which side was militarily prepared, indeed which side was patriotic and was following the legacy of ’76. Each side used veterans to demonstrate their commitment. Partisans would bring to rallies gray-haired veterans who affirmed their sponsor’s patriotism. And Republicans proclaimed that these veterans symbolized the value of the citizen soldier—while Federalists insisted they represented the value of an army in a democracy. 10
    In many ways, it became easier to salute those who had fallen in wartime than it was to support those who survived. Few were disposed to argue with the proposition that the war dead, with their final sacrifice, represented America’s best values. They symbolized service to the Republic, unselfishness, and courage. Remembering them well was an important part of the narrative of contemporary society: the better they were, the better we are. In Thucydides’ telling, Pericles had touched on this very theme millennia earlier in his funeral oration, reminding Athenians of their ties to those who had died in service to their society:
    In the plain and present sight of what confronted them they determined to rely upon themselves, and in the very act of resistance they preferred even death to survival at the cost of surrender. They fled from an ignominious reputation by withstanding the action with their lives. In the briefest moment, at the turning point of their fortune, they took their leave not of fear but of glory.
    Such were these men, and they proved worthy of their city. The rest of us may pray for a safer outcome, but should demand of ourselves a determination against the enemy no less courageous than theirs. 11

    These dead Athenians soldiers were worthy of Athens. So the remembered veterans of the Revolution, their spirit and their glory, were worthy of their cause—and, implicitly, they were worthy of their descendants.
    Â 
    Â 
    Early in the nineteenth century, there began in the United States a process that I would call the democratization of heroic memory. During and immediately after the War of 1812, Americans recognized that wars were won and territory protected not just by recognized individual “heroes.” The corollary was that not all heroes and surely not all defenders of the American ideal were officers.
    For a republic formed with an unprecedented (if far from inclusive) sense of egalitarianism, it was ironic that officers had been the public face of the Revolution. Within a generation this changed, and the anonymous and the unknown came to share in the heroic memory. Militia and regulars blended in popular narrative. The brave Continental army patriots at Valley Forge and the brave minutemen