May 23, 1865: Grand Review

Saturday, May 23, AD 2015

Something for the weekend:  Battle Hymn of the Republic.  Doubtless many men who fought in the Civil War thought, and dreaded, that the War might go on forever.  Now, however, it had ended with Union victory.  Some European powers speculated that the United States would now use its vast armies to take foreign territory:  perhaps French occupied Mexico, maybe settle old scores by taking Canada from Great Britain, Cuba, held by moribund Spain was certainly a tempting target.  But no, the armies had been raised for the purpose of preserving the Union.  Now the men in the ranks were eager to get home, and the nation was just as eager to enjoy peace.

One last duty remained however:  an immense victory parade in Washington.  On May 23, 1865, the 80,000 strong Army of the Potomac marched happily through the streets of Washington on a glorious spring day.  For six hours they passed the reviewing stand, where President Johnson, the cabinet, General Grant and assorted civilian and military high brass, received the salutes of, and saluted, the men who had saved the Union.  Most of the men had hated the Army, and were overjoyed to be going home, but for the rest of their lives they would remember this day and how all the death and suffering they had endured over the past four years had not been in vain after all.    Almost all of them were very young men now, and many of them would live to old age, future generations then having a hard time picturing them as they were now:  lean, battle-hardened and the victors of the bloodiest war in the history of their nation.  When they died iron stars would be put by their graves, and each Decoration Day, eventually called Memorial Day, flags would be planted by their graves, as if to recall a huge banner draped over the Capitol on this day of days:

“The Only National Debt We Can Never Pay, Is The Debt We Owe To Our Victorious Soldiers.”  

Continue reading...

4 Responses to May 23, 1865: Grand Review

29 Responses to Battle Hymn of the Republic

  • As I recall, inspiration for the first verse or stanza came (or seems to have come) from Revelation 14:17-20 and Wisdom 5:21-22:

    “And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”

    “And he will sharpen his severe wrath for a spear, and the whole world shall fight with him against the unwise. Then shafts of lightning shall go directly from the clouds, as from a bow well bent, they shall be shot out, and shall fly to the mark.”

  • Howe thought of the song as her humble contribution to the war effort:

    “I distinctly remember that a feeling of discouragement came over me as I drew near the city of Washington at the time already mentioned. I thought of the women of my acquaintance whose sons or husbands were fighting our great battle; the women themselves serving in the hospitals, or busying themselves with the work of the Sanitary Commission. My husband, as already said, was beyond the age of military service, my eldest son but a stripling; my youngest was a child of not more than two years. I could not leave my nursery to follow the march of our armies, neither had I the practical deftness which the preparing and packing of sanitary stores demanded. Some thing seemed to say to me, ‘You would be glad to serve, but you cannot help any one; you have nothing to give, and there is nothing for you to do.’ Yet, because of my sincere desire, a word was given me to say, which did strengthen the hearts of those who fought in the field and of those who languished in the prison.”

    The words to the song came to her in a sudden rush of inspiration, perhaps even divine inspiration according to Howe. That claim would seem at first blush a bit much, although I have no doubt that the Hand of God is often influencing us throughout all of our lives in ways that we have little inkling of this side of the grave.

  • 1. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is fine as long as you understand you have made the decision to tick (I started to use a more descriptive word) people off.

    2. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is fine as long as you are a Unitarian, like its author, who feels the distinction between the Union Army and God Himself is too subtle to be important.

  • Some people need to be ticked off.

    Perhaps God did use the Union Army to accomplish His purposes. After all, the slaves were freed.

  • The so-called “Battle Hymn” is a blood-thristy, violent song that does not deserve the praise of Christian men and women. Go to and read about who Julia Ward Howe really was, a hypocritical, foam at the mouth, fanatical radical who would have been quite at home with the radicals of the 1960’s.

  • Stephen,

    Wikipedia has certainly sanitized Julia Howe’s biography:

    But the “” web site seems more balanced (it references the Secret Six who were convinced by John Brown to bankroll his efforts which ended at Harper’s Ferry): (lot’s of sublinks here)

    Interestingly enough, she had a hand in founding Mother’s Day:

    Like most people, she wasn’t all good and she wasn’t all bad, but her badness could be very bad indeed.

    I’ve always liked but now have mixed feelings about the Battle Hymn of the Republic, having read the information at the web site that you provided.


  • Thank you Stephen for pointing out that big steaming pile of congealed nonsense written by Mr. Jones. It gives me reason to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic extra lustily tomorrow at Mass!

  • It should be remembered and taught in schools (although it is neither) that the Catholic Church was against setting the slaves free wholesale, simply turning them loose to fend for themselves without education or direction or any of the necessary skills to participate in society as equals. The church warned that unless the slave were given these basic necessities they would be enslaved by poverty generated by their new conditions without anything but their backs to provide for themselves and their children. Well, the politicians did not listen to the Wisdom of the Church, as they never do, (largely because 99% of them were Protestants) and we got exactly what the Church predicted: slums and poverty that haunts our nation to this day. The industrial north got exactly what they wanted, all the material wealth of the south (bought with the lives of others while they made $ making weapons and other provisions necessary to wage war) and undermined the labor force with the influx of ‘slave labor’ so no one could make a livable wage in their factories and the Industrial Revolution burned hotter and deadlier than ever and the scars of this injustice will plague this nation to our grave. The Church insisted that the slave be given human dignity and their families kept whole and not bought and sold like livestock; properly attended and prepared for ‘freedom’, not merely tossed out on the street without the means to participate in our civilization as true equals. We had stolen peoples from Africa and enslaved and treated them like cattle for generations; the Church reminded us that we owned them more than ‘freedom’ which was in reality abandonment and betrayal. But our compulsory schools systems continue to teach the illusion and the lie and even the African American rarely understands how they were cheated and used as pawns in the industrial game of greed and manipulation. We are brainwashed to think the South was this evil bunch of whiplashing tyrants and the North was the heroic saviors of the oppressed. The Truth is much more complicated and it was really only the Catholic Church who saw the situation for what it really was and spoke the Truth for humanity, but as usual, national and private interests fomented by greed ruled the day, and the Civil War was nothing but a dreadful infection upon the face of our nation: It produced nothing good. It killed and maimed hundreds of thousands, destroyed the culture and prosperity of the South, undermined the working class citizen’s ability to earn a livable wage, increased the wealth of the already filthy rich in the North who had no morals or concern for anyone but their own pockets, and it threw the African/negro slave into a worse position than he had been before, all in the name of righteousness and liberty. But politicians had worked this same poisonous art with the American Indian and we had sharpened our skills at treason and double dealing on them in the previous generation. This nation of ours will continue to suffer and diminish as long as we continue to refuse to see the sins of our past, as we will continue to be victims of our ignorance and the filthy rich power brokers will continue to throw the common citizen under the bus for his personal temporal gain. But we will not learn nor repent, because the school system here has been commandeered by Industry and the almighty Corporation to generate a new breed of ‘slaves’. And the new slave will serve his amoral corporate master without question or hesitation. And if we look back to the source of this ruinous cycle at the bottom of every evil inflicted upon the Western World we find the Reformation was the toxic catalyst that made it all possible and perpetuated the continued destruction of our civilization.
    All this was probably scrolling through the Pope’s mind while sitting there listening. But he is a patient man and a man who knows very well that the author of the song, the singers themselves, even the President and his wife didn’t really have a clue about the real origins of the song they were singing for him. I love the song too; I play it at Mass on the violin, but it’s tangled up in a distorted history of the human condition that is plagued by the seven deadly sins. Abe Lincoln was a good man, no doubt, but he was as ignorant to the manipulations of the power brokers as most people and was the perfect tool for their selfish plans. I fear this is the fate of most Presidents and other national leaders……….to be pawns like the rest of us. As long as we refuse to listen to the Wisdom of the eternal Church we will always have a place for the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’, as we will always be killing each other.

  • I have always loved the Battle Hymn of the Republic – as it speaks so aptly to the True Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that, he defends the oppressed and sets those in bondage Free. As should we, who dare call ourselves Christians. We are never more Christ-like than we are defending the vulnerable and innocent defenseless — it is then that the Light of Christ shines eternally in all of us.
    Thank you, Mr. McClarey, for reminding us of the Passion that burns within the heart of Our Savior for each of us and His desire to set us Free from the slavery of our sins.
    I am ever thankful for those who Serve, laying down their own lives and creature comforts so that we may remain a Free nation. May we never forget their sacrifice.

  • Wow, Paul, that was good.

    I would clarify, however, that it isn’t so much the free market system (a term you did not use) that failed us, but the greed and hubris of corporate socialism that has successfully manipulated us in our blindness. The system was never free market. Indeed, the system was never free (a point, I think, you aptly make).


    The other Paul

  • Paul, virtually none of what you wrote is historically accurate. Popes had condemned slavery in general terms over the centuries. However, the Church in America was almost completely silent in regard to slavery in this country prior to the Civil War. No such gradual emancipation policy that you say the Church was for was actually enunciated by any ecclesiastics in this country. History is not infinitely malleable and it is not a matter of let’s pretend. It is a matter of facts, whether we like them or not. The hard truth is that the Church in this country did not lead a fight against slavery, except for a very few priests in the North who were abolitionists. Some religious orders and clergy owned slaves in the South, and the Church said not a word. When it came to the fight against slavery in this country, tragically, most members of the Church were MIA or on the wrong side.

    “The industrial north got exactly what they wanted, all the material wealth of the south (bought with the lives of others while they made $ making weapons and other provisions necessary to wage war) and undermined the labor force with the influx of ‘slave labor’ so no one could make a livable wage in their factories and the Industrial Revolution burned hotter and deadlier than ever and the scars of this injustice will plague this nation to our grave.”

    This passage illustrates how far from actual history you are. There was no great influx of black populations from the South to the North to work in industries during the Civil War or in the 19th Century. That occurred from 1910-1930, with a second wave of migration during World War II. The South had almost totally missed the boat on industrialization prior to the Civil War. After the Civil War the South was held back economically primarily as a result of pathetically bad race relations due to the attempt of white politicians, supported by most whites, to disenfranchise blacks and keep them as fifth class citizens. Saying that this was as a result of evil Northern Industrialists is simply tin foil hat fantasy.

  • Alas, I have been duped again.


    But what the other Paul wrote certainly seemed good.

  • Pope Benedict will shortly celebrate the 60th anniversary of his ordination.

    We should remember him in our prayers.

    What Paul above wrote seems pretty close to whatever Copperheads and Dems believed, i.e., abolitionists were mainly plutocratic capitalists/industrialists that would employ freed men to increase the labor supply, would work for less, and cut everbody’s wages.

    Hey, 150 years later and Dems still hate, and lie about, rich people!

  • In grade school, some 70 years ago, I became acquainted with a possibly parody version that starts:
    “John Brown’s body lies a-molderin’ in the grave; (repeat 2x)
    But his soul goes marchin’ on.”
    Anyone know where that version came from? It obviously follows the raid on Harper’s Ferry, and the hanging of John Brown.

  • Donald,
    I wasn’t speaking of the “church in this country”, as you put it, as if the Church was a different and separate institution from the rest of the Universal church, nor some instant migration of blacks to the north as a result of unprepared/forced emancipation, as if the freed slave had the means for such a migration to begin with. I think you missed the point completely. The south didn’t “miss the boat on industrialization” either. It wasn’t part of the culture of the south and they really weren’t interested in it to begin with, so they didn’t “miss” anything and were very prosperous and satisfied with ‘the boat’ they had chosen. The “church in this country” wasn’t particularly strong at this time in history, (our oldest dioceses is now barely 150 years old!) so they didn’t have much ability to voice the Church’s official position. We were a Protestant nation almost completely at the time of the Civil War. I’m not defending either north or south, as you seem to think I am defending the south. The point is that we are taught a very biased and distorted version of history propagated by the victors, and as is usual the victors have made it all in their favor; putting them in a glorious light while showing their adversaries as totally unjustified in their position. You claiming that “virtually none of what I wrote is historically accurate” doesn’t make your case nor change the reality of the facts. What I wrote is true, whether it fits your version/comprehension of historical events or not. Your concept of history has been shaped by that same version propagated by the victors I spoke of above.
    Simply because a few catholic clerics owned slaves, something I have to take your word for, isn’t proof of the church’s official position on the matter anymore than a few priests supporting the ordaining of women is a proof of the Church’s official position on the ordaining of women. The Church’s official position was that the slave was to be treated with the dignity of any other human being and the family unit of the slave be given respect and the family members not be sold off without respect for the families themselves. As for the south treating the African race as 5th class citizens as you say, it was little better in the north until recently, and the devastation of the south was a very large part of the south’s lagging behind the north economically. As with any defeated nation, war takes many, many years to recover from the effects. I doubt any credible historian would place ‘bad race relations’ as the primary reason the south wasn’t economically competitive with the north after the Civil War as you have here: Certainly not above the fact that the south had just been defeated and largely devastated by the north. You may have read a few text books Don, but the truth isn’t always well represented in text books. I never claimed the northern industrialist were all evil either, nor were all southern slave owners. Relations between most slave owners and their slaves were generally very good and a solid majority of the slaves were not interested in being forced out of this relationship and tossed onto the street. We use the example of those who abused and oppressed as a boilerplate description of the general circumstances in the south, but again, this is bad history propagated by the victors.
    The African slave was generally much worse off after he was ‘set free’ than they had been before the war. This was just as the Church had warned. They had lost all security and were left to fend for themselves without the skills and preparation to integrate into society, and this was a huge injustice to them. This was my point, Donald.

  • Actually the first catholic diocese was in Maryland, 1789. But this link will show you my point that the Catholic Church was very small indeed during that time leading up to and during the Civil War, in spite of the fact that Catholicism was the first western religion to be established here.

  • Donald, before you go putting the Church in any worse light than you have in this case, (which may be difficult even for you), read this link: You have a very common and distorted concept of the Church’s position on slavery in this country. I’m sorry to inform you that the historical facts are not on your side as you think they are. BTW, if the Church was largely ‘MIA’ on this issue here in the US, it was because the Church was almost none existent here at the time of these events. You should be more careful about the charges you make against the Catholic Church in the future. You will give many the wrong impression of the Church due to your lack of accurate historical knowledge.

  • Donald,
    Here is another link to educate you in the Truth about the Catholic Church’s position regarding slavery.

  • TeaPot, “John Brown’s Body” predates “Battle Hymn” by several years and apparently was at least a partial inspiration to Julia Ward Howe when she wrote “Battle Hymn.” Both she and her husband, Samuel Howe, were active abolititionists and Samuel Howe is said to have been part of a secret group that funded Brown’s (what we today might call terrorist) activities.

    Both songs use an even older folk melody, commonly sung at camp meetings or revivals, known as “Canaan’s Happy Shore” or “Brothers, Will You Meet Me”?

    The tune itself has also been used for the labor anthem “Solidarity Forever,” for the U.S. Army paratrooper song “Blood on the Risers,” as a fight song for the Georgia Bulldogs, and as a rallying song for British and Australian football/rugby/soccer teams.

  • “TeaPot, “John Brown’s Body” predates “Battle Hymn” by several years and apparently was at least a partial inspiration to Julia Ward Howe when she wrote “Battle Hymn.””

    “John Brown’s Body” was a piece of doggerel originally about a Union volunteer named John Brown and had nothing to do with the John Brown who was hanged at Harper’s Ferry. The song became catchy with Union soldiers and had verses attached to it applicable to the famous John Brown. This was in 1861. Howe heard this song and used it as the basis for the Battle Hymn of the Republic which she wrote in 1862.

  • Paul, in reference to the condemnation by the Popes in regard to slavery, I know that and have written about it. You might find this post and the comment thread enlightening:

    However, Catholics in this country, including clergy, by and large simply accepted slavery as a fact of life. To educate yourself on this painful subject, go to the link below to read about the plantations owned by the Jesuits in Maryland where hundreds of slaves were used. The Jesuits switched to free labor in 1838, however the slaves were not emancipated, but were sold.

    Some Northern Catholic clerics began to speak out against slavery during the Civil War, most notably the Archbishop of Cincinatti John Baptist Purcell. Here is a link below to an account by the New York Times of a speech he gave on the subject in 1863:

  • Donald,
    You seem to be missing my point intentionally, or I have failed to get it across. The point is this: The actions of a few Catholic clergy or orders in the New World were NOT representative of the Universal Church’s Official position on slavery. The Catholic Church was a very small and largely suppressed organization here in the US prior to and during the time of the Civil War. As for the Jesuits in Maryland selling the slaves under their care, what would you have them freed into? They had no property, no means of participating in society. Were the Jesuits, in their mercy, supposed to simply open the front gate of the plantation and kick them out saying, ‘You’re free, go and prosper in your bright future. Good Luck!’? I’m pretty sure this would have been a terrible injustice, don’t you think? The Church thought it would be an injustice too. If the Jesuits sold their slaves instead of simply turning them loose, I have no doubt the intentions were that they were well placed and cared for in their new home. Their future was much more secure and comfortable than the alternative on the mean streets without means.
    One must remember a couple of things: First that we can’t use our modern concept of justice and what is acceptable now as a template for understanding any given time in the past. This is very bad historical perspective and will never give anyone an accurate view of the time period in question. (Yet this seems to be to normal mode for modern historians writing text books). Second, and this goes hand-in-hand with the first point, one must understand the nature of ‘Slavery’ as a genus with several subspecies of slavery under this general category. All slavery was not intrinsically evil, and it was a matter of fact that the slave was often a valuable and happy member of the household living a productive life as such.
    Many times the slave was not interested in emancipation. The slavery of the pagans was a different species than that of the Israelites/Jews for example. Both were called ‘slavery’, however, the former was a brutal injustice where the latter served justice. If the Catholic clergy or institution you mention owned slaves what evidence do you have that they abused them in any way? What evidence do you have that the slaves wanted emancipation? What possible alternative did the Jesuits have that would have better served the slaves in question? I have little doubt that the slaves there under Jesuit care were apprehensive about their future without the Jesuits!
    It is also worth pointing out that the real issue wasn’t slaves working for their daily bread, as we all must do (and this was much more the reality in early 19th century America where there wasn’t an abundance of charitable institutions (thanks to the suppression of the catholic Church) and social programs to ‘lean on’), It was more the nature of the slave trade that enslaved whole races and subjected them to relocation, broken families and brutal conditions against their will. Once the ‘slave’ was here in the New World there weren’t many options for them. They had no means or skills to enter ‘modern civilization’ as equals. That’s the cold reality, Donald. But they were here, very many of them, and they had to be considered into the future of this nation, as they could not simply be deported back to a land and way of life that was totally alien to them now. The Church pressed for them to be educated and prepared for ‘freedom’ as the only just course for the future.
    You may not know this Donald, but no one was interested in giving the newly freed slave any land to work or anything else necessary for survival to say nothing of a prosperous future. The States were angling against the Federal Government and the Native Americans were caught in the middle being squeezed off their lands. The Indians weren’t big fans of the slaves being given their lands either.
    This was a completely different time than our own Donald, and you would be well served to remember that. Slavery was, in fact, a part of life. Your views are distorted by your modern perspective of the conditions as they were on the ground during this time. The slaves were here, they could not be sent back to a home that was now alien and would have amounted to a death sentence. They were not going to get free lands during a time where the land in their area was already under extreme pressure between the States, the Federal Government and the Native population. The Church reminded us that we had a humanitarian responsibility for these people as we had created the conditions in the first place. So what is your answer Donald? Just wage war to turn them out into the street, as the power brokers behind the political leaders/pawns did? The only people who gained from the Civil War were the only people who ever gain from armed conflict—the wealthy power brokers. Follow the money Donald, always follow the money. Stop blaming the Catholic Church for working within the given reality of the conditions at hand, conditions you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend.
    Also remember that the Church’s primary mission is ministry to, for the sake of eternal salvation of, the eternal human soul; not simply providing for the body within which that eternal soul resides. Eternal Salvation was/is no less attainable from the bottom of the social ladder (slave) than from the top (slave owner). In fact it is often far more attainable from the bottom where one need not worry about driving that darn camel through the eye of that darn needle.
    The bottom line is that the Catholic Church did as much as was within Her power in this situation, sadly that power was very limited in a firmly Protestant Nation. It is interesting that Canada and Mexico had no such dark past involving the Slavery. Perhaps that’s because the Catholic Church had much more authority in these nations which were much more Catholic in the first place. The Catholic Church was allowed to perform Her chartered Christian missions in these new lands, and the natives of these nations were the beneficiaries of that Universal Mission that has served humanity for nearly 2000 years now and has been solely responsible for the development of the greatest achievement in human history—Western Civilization. Civilization is always best served when the Church is unobstructed in fulfilling the Charter She was given by Jesus Christ Himself. That mission seeks first the Kingdom of God for the benefit of the Eternal human soul. When the body is served first, as is always the case with secular government institutions, nothing is served well, least of all humanity. Look around Donald and tell me I’m wrong.
    I hope I’ve finally made my original point clear enough, as I will not participate in a ‘tit-for-tat’ squabbling session that often happens in these ‘blogging’ venues. Life’s too short to waste it arguing with people who think they know everything already. We might both be accused of that;)))

  • Oh, your point was quite clear Paul. Stripped of your excessive verbiage it was an attempt to get around the very inconvenient fact for Neo-Confederates that the Civil War was all about slavery, which the Confederate states were quite explicit about at the beginning of the War. Your meaning is quite plain in your first lengthy missive in this passage:

    “We are brainwashed to think the South was this evil bunch of whiplashing tyrants and the North was the heroic saviors of the oppressed. The Truth is much more complicated and it was really only the Catholic Church who saw the situation for what it really was and spoke the Truth for humanity, but as usual, national and private interests fomented by greed ruled the day, and the Civil War was nothing but a dreadful infection upon the face of our nation: It produced nothing good. It killed and maimed hundreds of thousands, destroyed the culture and prosperity of the South, undermined the working class citizen’s ability to earn a livable wage, increased the wealth of the already filthy rich in the North who had no morals or concern for anyone but their own pockets, and it threw the African/negro slave into a worse position than he had been before, all in the name of righteousness and liberty. ”

    You of course have no actual historical evidence to fall back on to support your thesis, not a particle of which is true, so you engage in extensive bloviation when challenged as a substitute, and are unable, and unwilling, to come to terms with the actual historical record. Par for the course when defenders of the Lost Cause engage in this type of debate with someone very familiar with the historical record.

  • Pacem Paul and Mac.

    No sense refighting the war.

    Points of information (Roberts’ Rules of Order):

    One: The Emancipation was not proclaimed until the war was flagrant nearly 2 years: after much bloodshed including Antietam and Fredricksburg.

    Two: Except for politicians and radicals, the soldier probably did not believe ending slavery justified civil war or murder.

    Three: War is all Hell. No one wins. There are fatigue, suffering and glory (Sherman’s definition). Although, it “beats” malignant melanoma . . .

  • T. Shaw the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by Lincoln in order to help win the war which it did. The Confederate goverment responded by condemning the Proclamation, and ordering in retaliation that all white officers leading black troops be executed and that the black troops they led either be enslaved or executed.

    Most Union troops in the early years of the war fought only to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. By the end of the war a solid majority of Union troops were in favor of both goals, as signaled by the Union soldier vote in 1864 breaking heavily for Lincoln.

    There are far worse things than the hell on Earth which is war as accurately described by Sherman. Slavery is one of these things, and another one was the breakup of our Union.

  • Ah, the pleasure some people get tearing other people apart. I personally never met Ms. Howe, so I have no opinion of her. And furthermore, my mother was born in Mobile, AL and my dad in Pipestone, MN. That said, I have always and will always love the Battle Hymn of the Republic–period, end of report, as my dad was famous for saying. To each his own, but it sure is hateful to be so mean to someone who is dead.

  • Goodbye Paul. You are banned from this website. I have given you ample opportunity to make your case and in your latest contribution you resort to name calling. Go elsewhere to make your longwinded defense of slavery and the Confederacy.

3 Responses to The Battle Hymn of the Republic

  • Thank you for posting.

    Memorial Day brings childhood memories. As a boy scout in the early 1960’s, our troop would march in each Memorial Day parade. It was special. Most of our fathers had served in WWII. Many of their sons would see action in Vietnam.

    On Memorial Day, I remember all the young men that gave their last full measure of devotion, and never got to raise families, like I have. And, I especially prayerfully remember Bill, Dan, Dave, and Paul who marched with me in those parades and never came home from their war.

    Flag etiquette: Memorial Day morning the flag is displayed at half staff. It is slowly raised to full staff and slowly lowered to half, in honor of the fallen. After noon, the flag is repsectfully returned to full staff.

  • Thank you gentlemen.