Veterans surround Washington D.C. President orders military intervention.

The events of the Bonus Army have been often discussed here at ATS. As a matter of fact, I probably first learned about it here on ATS or similar sites.

I think history is important to consider in these hypothetical discussions of Citizens VS Government. Several incidents in US history stand out in my mind: Kent State, The Bonus Army, Ft. Sumter,the Whiskey Rebellion, Lexington & Concord, and the Boston Massacre are relevant, but unique in their own circumstance. I totally understand those that point to Kent State and the Bonus Army and say that by and large the military will simply follow orders and fire on citizens, and I concede that at the start of a civil conflict, they probably will. As far as murder of Citizens by the State goes, Kent State and the Bonus Army ( Four Dead in Ohio, and a handful in DC with more killed by police than military) are minute compared to events going on right now in other parts of the world. Also, one must also consider the outcomes to this bloodshed over the course of the years following the event. Opposition to the Vietnam war peaked right around the same time as Kent State and within just a few years we withdrew, and Hoover lost the election just a few months down the road from the Bonus Army and just four years later Veterans received their payment early even after a Presidential Veto (by Roosevelt, overrode by Congress). So which side ended up winning those battles? It looks to me like the Victims ended up the Victors in fairly short order, around 4-5 years in each case, though I'm sure the dead take little solace in that.

Ft. Sumter and Lexington/Concord are similar in that a decision (if not a Declaration) to dissolve the ties that bind people together had already been made by one side of the participants and what followed ended up in wars that were longer, bloodier, more economically devastating, and having more unexpected ramifications than either side foresaw. One ended up the stewards of a new nation with all the potential and problems that entails while the other suffered a crushing defeat that was the first taste of the carnage would define war in the Industrial Age.

Even though I understand why people point to Kent State and the Bonus Army as evidence that US soldiers will fire on US citizens, I honestly tire of hearing it. Yes, they did, but how many times in short succession after those events were those same soldiers asked to again? In both these instances the ties that bound the nation together were stronger than political differences or the horror of the events even though both era's were somewhat tumultuous in US History (Anti-War, Civil Rights Movement and Great Depression). In the 1770's and 1860's the ties had grown so weak that the members of Colonial Militias and the US Military threw there lot in with their chosen side before the first major conflicts started. Another issue I have with those that scream "Kent State" / "Bonus Army" is that they are so often the same that say that any armed opposition to the TPTB will end in a crushing boot to the head of those who would defy the government. That is certainly within the realm of possibility if not probability but popular revolution, after the first few engagements, is inherently unpredictable, and tactical victories may end up being strategic defeats.

Luckily, most everyone I know who has seriously thought about such realizes that what comes after a Civil Conflict is often worse than the circumstance before it; and despite our historical fortune of getting a Constitution and President George Washington instead of His Majesy King George I out the American Revolution; that such recourse should indeed be the last resort after a long train of abuses.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Yep

reply to post by gladtobehere


I'm under no illusion about whether our military would open fire on us or not. There may be a few that would refuse or just stand there when the shooting started,but yeah I would say a good 90% will 'follow orders'.

At Nuremburg that was the reason heard over and over again about why this or that person committed the crimes they did. Have to remember, if you don't follow an order you can and will be brought up on insubordination or disobeying orders. But if you do follow orders and its your government that goes down,you will be brought up on crimes against humanity.Thats why its a no win situation being in the armed service. If you take the high road you better hope your government goes down,oh and that you have witness' to you not following orders.

In the meantime,there is supposed to be NO standing army on our shores,that way we as a people don't have to worry about a powerful army coming in and dealing with a domesticated issue on the home front.Right. I'll keep my guns and worry about protecting myself.If I get cut down,at least it was for standing up for what I believe in.

reply to post by HomerinNC


it does doesn't it.

who knows, it could be true or not. like i said could just be urban legend.
but as far as all that i've read i tend to think it's true. maybe the writer of the film heard the story too.

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

it does doesn't it.

who knows, it could be true or not. like i said could just be urban legend.
but as far as all that i've read i tend to think it's true. maybe the writer of the film heard the story too.

According to the Library of Congress website the bonus army incident really did happen. Here is the link:

www.loc.gov...

now a days they just get you to shoot DU at their last victims, or withhold yer meds
cheeper then shooting you

SecretWeapon

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

it does doesn't it.

who knows, it could be true or not. like i said could just be urban legend.
but as far as all that i've read i tend to think it's true. maybe the writer of the film heard the story too.

According to the Library of Congress website the bonus army incident really did happen. Here is the link:

www.loc.gov...

i was talking about his post where he said the story about patton going into phenix al, sounded like the movie tank.
not the bonus army.

i see how it could be confusing though.

Good old Fascism.





INFORMATION

reply to post by HomerinNC


It shows something else too...the most famous military commanders of WW2 and later among the most powerful men on Earth were anything but friends of democracy or the people.

They were staking their claims, and selfishly and callously cementing their cosy and well positioned seats at the feeding trough of power. The fact that blood of their 'brothers in arms' was used in part to mix that cement, obviously mattered not a jot to them.

If anything, rather than showing how the 'military' would have no problem turning on the people, it ought to in fact serve to show
those serving their country in todays military, how very little those calling the shots value the people of the military, their safety and their rights.

The greedy pigs at the trough talk a good patriotic talk when they require the people to kill and die at their whim, but then very quickly abondon the principles they claim they are sending the people to kill and die for, as soon as it suits them.

There's a word for that...in fact two words for that..Traitors and hypocrites.

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace

 

yep, patton loved a good fight.

He would have jumped at the chance to go into battle against a marching group of mothers pushing prams, and would have taken no prisoners.

He and the rest of them were douchebags, regardless of how Hollywood portrays them.

And after this event Dwight Eisenhower and Major George S. Patton hated General Douglas MacArthur,

This was why Dwight Eisenhower and Major George S. Patton were in europe and General Douglas MacArthur was half a world away.

General Douglas MacArthur would not have been brought back in charge of the military if the Japanese had not attacked the Philippines.

Ironclad2000

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by ItCameFromOuterSpace

 

yep, patton loved a good fight.

He would have jumped at the chance to go into battle against a marching group of mothers pushing prams, and would have taken no prisoners.

He and the rest of them were douchebags, regardless of how Hollywood portrays them.

yea what ever help you sleep at night, keep on believing it.

sorry [snip], Patton and the rest of em were highly respected long before hollywood ever thought of trying to make a buck off of their names.

hounddoghowlie
sorry son, Patton and the rest of em were highly respected long before hollywood ever thought of trying to make a buck off of their names.

Highly respected by whom?

Not me [snip]

See, I can degrade you while I'm replying to your post also.

These douchebags fired on their own. There is only one word for that. TRAITOR!!!

reply to post by HandyDandy



it is apparent that you are ether, ignorant of the history, or ignore the fact that the marchers were the first to attack. it's pays to look at both sides of something before you go on spouting party lines. the first attack that started the whole mess was directed at the one official in washington, who was also a member of the group, and his men that was trying to help them. he then called for help from the government. and it is thought to be provoked to some extent, by a agent provocateur of the American Communist Party by the name of john pace. and left two marchers dead from that attack that were shot by police after being surrounded. thoughts vary as to how much influence pace may have had.

the official was the chief of police, and his name was Pelham Glassford, also a vetren of WWI

Theirs was a miserable lot, alleviated somewhat by the beneficence of the city's superintendent of police, Pelham Glassford, himself a war veteran.

Glassford pitied the beleaguered itinerants and solicited private aid to secure medical assistance, clothing, food and supplies. During a May 26 veterans meeting, Glassford suggested they officially call themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force. Adopting the name — which was commonly shortened to Bonus Army — they asked him, and he agreed, to serve as secretary-treasurer of the group. Working together, Waters and Glassford managed to maintain enough discipline and order in the ranks to ward off eviction. Glassford likely hoped that the horde would eventually lose interest and return home, but Waters had other ideas. 'We'll stay here until the bonus bill is passed,' Waters told anyone who would listen, 'till 1945, if necessary.' He staged daily demonstrations before the Capitol and led peaceful marches past the White House. President Herbert Hoover refused to give him an audience. The 'Bonus Army' War in Washington

In any case, Secretary of War Patrick Hurley had had enough. On July 28 he ordered Glassford to immediately evacuate the occupied buildings, which were scheduled for demolition to make way for new government offices. The veterans stubbornly refused to budge. For whatever reason, Glassford and his police officers became the target of bricks and stones, and one officer suffered a fractured skull. As the melee got out of hand, an angry veteran, apparently feeling that Glassford had betrayed the Bonus Marchers, tore off the chief's gold police badge. Fearing for their safety, police opened fire, killing one veteran and mortally wounding another. The 'Bonus Army' War in Washington

john pace even admitted that he was ordered by the ACP to use the march as a means to start a riot, and cuase as much bloodshed as possible.

i know a lot of people don't trust the msm and only use them when they support their point of view, that said here is a news paper article dated 17 yrs after the march that quotes pace about his involment. it is a PDF so here is a screen shot and link. it even has a picture of pace, and remember they didn't have photo shop back then. i suppose that it could all be made up, but not everything is a lie.

PDF Link

now granted some will say that this is a made up article that was fueled by the red scare after WWII. if that was the case, why just one man why not a couple or more. and at the time the riot happened it is well known that the ACP was trying to infiltrate all areas of the U.S. political system, thus the reason for the fears of Hoover and others. seeing how they saw what happened in russia 15 yrs earlier.

look all i'am all for peaceful protest, and even if it has to come other alternatives to petition government. what i don't stand for is not accepting your responsibility when hostilities breakout and you don't leave when they start. if you start something have the balls to accept the outcome if things don't go your way and don't cry about. what is government suppose to do, just give in to protestors that start violence.

when you lay down with dogs you get fleas, if you don't want them leave.
[snip]




ETA: i still have to find it, but if i'm not mistaken the deaths caused by the army were not the result of gunshots, they were from gas related symptoms. and fires. the deaths if i recall are two veterans killed by the police and two infants due to the gas. if i find a source i will post it. there were some injuries caused by psychical contact of the troops.i may be wrong but i seem to recall that from some thing i read.

Many wonder if the military would move against the people.

reply to post by gladtobehere


As you stated...if history is any indicator...then yes they certainly will. It's been done a number of times....at the Kent State "riots", and I use that term loosely, the National Guard gunned down college kids.

I have NO doubt that the US Military will kill their own again if they are ordered to.

reply to post by bbracken677

Heard of Kent State? The military DID fire on us protesters...and shot and killed 4 of us. FOR protesting...peacefully. (Actually, the National Guard fired...on orders).

Not new or recent. Like the videos here portraying it as its now and our president ordered...etc. Didn't happen anytime recent.

That was a shameful moment of American history.As bad as WWII was WWI was even more horrific.Poison gas,rapid fire machine guns,large Artillery guns.I always thought these soldiers had a damn good right to march on Washington and in no way deserved to be attacked,especially by fellow soldiers.An insult.

reply to post by HandyDandy


i told you i would post a link if i found one and i think i found it,and it comes from the same people that the op used. now i'm off to see if i can find the source quotes the op used, maybe the op will provide a link.

On July 21, with the Army preparing to step in at any moment, Glassford was ordered to begin evacuating several buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, using force if necessary. A week later, on the steamy morning of July 28, several Marchers rushed Glassford's police and began throwing bricks.

Conspicuously led by MacArthur, Army troops (including Major George S. Patton, Jr.) formed infantry cordons and began pushing the veterans out, destroying their makeshift camps as they went. Although no weapons were fired, cavalry advanced with swords drawn, and some blood was shed. By nightfall, hundreds had been injured by gas (including a baby who died), bricks, clubs, bayonets, and sabers.

above quotes come from this PBS page, The Bonus March (May-July, 1932)

now we know that the marcher attacked the police with bricks, first before the army was ever called, i wonder who was using them during the time the army was clearing them out.

reply to post by gladtobehere


wondering if you could provide source links for the quotes you used in the op. the youtube gives nothing but the video.
thank you.

hounddoghowlie


On July 21, with the Army preparing to step in at any moment, Glassford was ordered to begin evacuating several buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, using force if necessary. A week later, on the steamy morning of July 28, several Marchers rushed Glassford's police and began throwing bricks.

How can you read this and come to the conclusion that the protestors were the ones who started it?

Did you miss the part where it states "using force if necessary"? If so, you may want to read that again and think about what happened.

What happened: The police started "using force"...i.e. beating people who were protesting. The protestors retaliated and started throwing bricks in defense.

And you say the protestors started the violence?
[sni