Should Veterans Dabble in Politics?
A national debate ignites over whether the Grand Army of the Republic should endorse a vice-presidential candidate, challenging the group's non-partisan status.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The proposition of Kansas Grand Army men to urge the nomination of Judge Ell Torrance for the vice presidency next year as a representative of the Grand Army of the Republic is attracting attention in the east. The Washington Post does not regard the suggestion with favor, noting: 'Have they not learned in thirty-eight years that have elapsed since the curtain rung down on that majestic drama that the great, loyal heart of the nation is beating in grateful remembrance of them and is it possible they cannot see that a movement looking to a demand for honors rather than to continue their disinterested service in the interest of the republic will strip them of their laurels?' The paper argued there would be no more propriety in veterans going into politics as a distinct entity than there would be in such action by a church.
“Have they not learned in thirty-eight years that have elapsed since the curtain rung down on that majestic drama that the great, loyal heart of the nation is beating in grateful remembrance of them?”
This 1903 debate over the political mobilization of veterans parallels modern discourse about the role of special interest groups and partisan lobbies in democratic institutions. It highlights the recurring tension between a group's identity and its civic independence.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.