

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
ON MEMORIAL DAY, a grateful nation remembers its war dead, but that somehow gets it backward. Those who have died in America's wars are, more than any other distinct group, the creators of the nation. When citizens go willingly to their deaths for a civic cause, the cause is vindicated - if by nothing else. Public feelings of grief and loss become a source of living cohesion, which is the ground of patriotism. It is fitting that Memorial Day should have taken its place on the American calendar after the Civil War, since it was in that conflict that this principle was first established with power.
The Civil War began, on the northern side, as a war for union, not abolition of slavery. By the second year of the war, the sheer scale of death forced a change in its aim. Shiloh, in April 1862, saw 25,000 casualties. In July, at Bull Run, there were 20,000. Antietam, in September, was the bloodiest day in American history, with 24,000 casualties in 12 hours. A week later, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Yale historian Harry Stout explains why: "By Lincoln's calculation, the killing must continue on ever grander scales. But for that to succeed, the people must be persuaded to shed blood without reservation. This, in turn, required a moral certitude that the killing was just.'' Mere 19th-century nationalism - "Union'' - was not yet enough. For Americans, the "nation'' was becoming sacred, but it was not yet that sacred. "Only emancipation - Lincoln's last card - would provide such certitude,'' Stout writes.
In the end, something like 700,000 Americans died in that war, North and South. An equivalent in population today would approach 7 million. It is much remarked that after the Civil War, and the firm establishment of "Union,'' the "United States'' went from being a plural noun to a singular one, but that transition to the nation we know was accomplished by the dead - who eventually included Lincoln himself.
There are deep strains of the human condition here, something about the way living persons adjust to war's undeniable manifestation of mortality. But the valorizing of the heroes is only half the story. After World War I, Europe became as obsessively attentive to the "fallen'' as the United States had been after its Civil War. The millions of young men who died on the Western Front and other battlefields were not only mourned, but missed. The mantle of international dominance crossed the Atlantic to America in the mid-20th century in part because most of a generation of Old World leaders was cut down in the mud - a continental amputation. A memorial day, in that context, requires remembrance of the world that might have been. Imagine Europe even today if those nearly 10 million - so brave, so selfless - had not been lost.
Indeed, the most fitting tribute that can be paid to those who made the ultimate sacrifice is a full reckoning with what that sacrifice actually cost - not just the fallen and their families, but the larger community that was deprived of the social contributions they would otherwise have made.
Perhaps war's most unsung casualty, in that sense, is the future, which is by definition demeaned by the absence of the heroes. Yet when survivors fill in for those who are gone, they come more fully into responsibility for the commonwealth. The dead create the nation also by being gone.
For all these reasons, remembering is not enough. Beneath the beauty of the lilies lies the ugliness of war. For the act of memorializing to be truly honorable, that harsh reality must be kept central. The human longing for an end to war must be revivified generation in and generation out - not just as a dream, but as a mandate. The waste, futility, and cruelty of war must focus our perceptions of it.
Just because we necessarily make something noble of war, by thinking gratefully of those who served to the point of death, does not remove the indictment of what killed them. War is a crime. Among its victims are its heroes. Yet in the modern era, they have been vastly outnumbered by men, women, and children for whom war was only catastrophic, in no way valorous. Memorial Day belongs to that legion of the dead also.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
ON MEMORIAL DAY, a grateful nation remembers its war dead, but that somehow gets it backward. Those who have died in America's wars are, more than any other distinct group, the creators of the nation. When citizens go willingly to their deaths for a civic cause, the cause is vindicated - if by nothing else. Public feelings of grief and loss become a source of living cohesion, which is the ground of patriotism. It is fitting that Memorial Day should have taken its place on the American calendar after the Civil War, since it was in that conflict that this principle was first established with power.
The Civil War began, on the northern side, as a war for union, not abolition of slavery. By the second year of the war, the sheer scale of death forced a change in its aim. Shiloh, in April 1862, saw 25,000 casualties. In July, at Bull Run, there were 20,000. Antietam, in September, was the bloodiest day in American history, with 24,000 casualties in 12 hours. A week later, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Yale historian Harry Stout explains why: "By Lincoln's calculation, the killing must continue on ever grander scales. But for that to succeed, the people must be persuaded to shed blood without reservation. This, in turn, required a moral certitude that the killing was just.'' Mere 19th-century nationalism - "Union'' - was not yet enough. For Americans, the "nation'' was becoming sacred, but it was not yet that sacred. "Only emancipation - Lincoln's last card - would provide such certitude,'' Stout writes.
In the end, something like 700,000 Americans died in that war, North and South. An equivalent in population today would approach 7 million. It is much remarked that after the Civil War, and the firm establishment of "Union,'' the "United States'' went from being a plural noun to a singular one, but that transition to the nation we know was accomplished by the dead - who eventually included Lincoln himself.
There are deep strains of the human condition here, something about the way living persons adjust to war's undeniable manifestation of mortality. But the valorizing of the heroes is only half the story. After World War I, Europe became as obsessively attentive to the "fallen'' as the United States had been after its Civil War. The millions of young men who died on the Western Front and other battlefields were not only mourned, but missed. The mantle of international dominance crossed the Atlantic to America in the mid-20th century in part because most of a generation of Old World leaders was cut down in the mud - a continental amputation. A memorial day, in that context, requires remembrance of the world that might have been. Imagine Europe even today if those nearly 10 million - so brave, so selfless - had not been lost.
Indeed, the most fitting tribute that can be paid to those who made the ultimate sacrifice is a full reckoning with what that sacrifice actually cost - not just the fallen and their families, but the larger community that was deprived of the social contributions they would otherwise have made.
Perhaps war's most unsung casualty, in that sense, is the future, which is by definition demeaned by the absence of the heroes. Yet when survivors fill in for those who are gone, they come more fully into responsibility for the commonwealth. The dead create the nation also by being gone.
For all these reasons, remembering is not enough. Beneath the beauty of the lilies lies the ugliness of war. For the act of memorializing to be truly honorable, that harsh reality must be kept central. The human longing for an end to war must be revivified generation in and generation out - not just as a dream, but as a mandate. The waste, futility, and cruelty of war must focus our perceptions of it.
Just because we necessarily make something noble of war, by thinking gratefully of those who served to the point of death, does not remove the indictment of what killed them. War is a crime. Among its victims are its heroes. Yet in the modern era, they have been vastly outnumbered by men, women, and children for whom war was only catastrophic, in no way valorous. Memorial Day belongs to that legion of the dead also.
ON MEMORIAL DAY, a grateful nation remembers its war dead, but that somehow gets it backward. Those who have died in America's wars are, more than any other distinct group, the creators of the nation. When citizens go willingly to their deaths for a civic cause, the cause is vindicated - if by nothing else. Public feelings of grief and loss become a source of living cohesion, which is the ground of patriotism. It is fitting that Memorial Day should have taken its place on the American calendar after the Civil War, since it was in that conflict that this principle was first established with power.
The Civil War began, on the northern side, as a war for union, not abolition of slavery. By the second year of the war, the sheer scale of death forced a change in its aim. Shiloh, in April 1862, saw 25,000 casualties. In July, at Bull Run, there were 20,000. Antietam, in September, was the bloodiest day in American history, with 24,000 casualties in 12 hours. A week later, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Yale historian Harry Stout explains why: "By Lincoln's calculation, the killing must continue on ever grander scales. But for that to succeed, the people must be persuaded to shed blood without reservation. This, in turn, required a moral certitude that the killing was just.'' Mere 19th-century nationalism - "Union'' - was not yet enough. For Americans, the "nation'' was becoming sacred, but it was not yet that sacred. "Only emancipation - Lincoln's last card - would provide such certitude,'' Stout writes.
In the end, something like 700,000 Americans died in that war, North and South. An equivalent in population today would approach 7 million. It is much remarked that after the Civil War, and the firm establishment of "Union,'' the "United States'' went from being a plural noun to a singular one, but that transition to the nation we know was accomplished by the dead - who eventually included Lincoln himself.
There are deep strains of the human condition here, something about the way living persons adjust to war's undeniable manifestation of mortality. But the valorizing of the heroes is only half the story. After World War I, Europe became as obsessively attentive to the "fallen'' as the United States had been after its Civil War. The millions of young men who died on the Western Front and other battlefields were not only mourned, but missed. The mantle of international dominance crossed the Atlantic to America in the mid-20th century in part because most of a generation of Old World leaders was cut down in the mud - a continental amputation. A memorial day, in that context, requires remembrance of the world that might have been. Imagine Europe even today if those nearly 10 million - so brave, so selfless - had not been lost.
Indeed, the most fitting tribute that can be paid to those who made the ultimate sacrifice is a full reckoning with what that sacrifice actually cost - not just the fallen and their families, but the larger community that was deprived of the social contributions they would otherwise have made.
Perhaps war's most unsung casualty, in that sense, is the future, which is by definition demeaned by the absence of the heroes. Yet when survivors fill in for those who are gone, they come more fully into responsibility for the commonwealth. The dead create the nation also by being gone.
For all these reasons, remembering is not enough. Beneath the beauty of the lilies lies the ugliness of war. For the act of memorializing to be truly honorable, that harsh reality must be kept central. The human longing for an end to war must be revivified generation in and generation out - not just as a dream, but as a mandate. The waste, futility, and cruelty of war must focus our perceptions of it.
Just because we necessarily make something noble of war, by thinking gratefully of those who served to the point of death, does not remove the indictment of what killed them. War is a crime. Among its victims are its heroes. Yet in the modern era, they have been vastly outnumbered by men, women, and children for whom war was only catastrophic, in no way valorous. Memorial Day belongs to that legion of the dead also.