Talk:Bonus Army/Archive 1

Additional Material
I added George patton's own report, and the Associated Press Article - both from Volume I of The Patton Papers. These two sections are the most detailed I could find. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AMJ
Who is "AMJ"? The article doesn't explain. microchip08 10:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure where in the article you see AMJ, but it might mean American Jurisprudence. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
Is there any substantiation to the claim that the three veterans were "accidentally shot", or is this speculation?

What were the exact casualty numbers?

"Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed"

"Two veterans killed."

These two comments contradict each other. It needs cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaides (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Search Keys for "Bonus Army" Article
I think the term "Bonus Soldier" should be added as a search key that leads to this article. This is because that is the name used in an NPR article I heard several years back. I had trouble finding this article because I used "Bonus Soldier" and got a "not found" message.

I hope someone will do this.

Dennis Dennis10458 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gas
IT WASN'T TEAR GAS THAT WAS USED ON THE BONUS MARCHERS BUT AN ARSENICAL CALLED ADEMSITE. THIS IS A TOXIC DEVELOPED IN WORLD WAR I AND PRODUCED IN SMOKE CANDLES (5 POUND CANISTERS THAT WERE LIT TO PRODUCE A DENSE POISONOUS SMOKE. IT IS A VOMITING AGENT, BUT ALSO QUITE TOXIC.  THE GAS WAS STOCKPILED AT CAMP SIMMS AND THEREAFTER BURIED WHEN IT BECAME OBSOLETE.  THE ARSENIC IN THE GROUNDWATER EXISTS TO THIS DAY.
 * I would suggest that you read the article on Adamsite for better information on its properties. Adamsite may have been toxic, it was not lethal. Indeed, it was intended to be used as a means of getting troops out of their protective masks so that lethal agents could create casualties. Besides, the amount that was produced would have been kept at Fort Meade, Maryland, which was where the Chemical Corps Headquarters was located at the time. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cornelius, given a 21'st century filter upon toxic agents upon infants, I'll disagree. That said, OUR CURRENT view is that it IS toxic to the fetus or child, AT THAT TIME, it was considered an incapacitating agent. THAT said, were it to happen today, THIS veteran would march upon Washington, D.C. and raze it back to the swamp it once was. While the veterans were wrong by law, the conditions of the nation and the support of the nation should have rested with those who supported her, not with a balance sheet. And to those who object, consider an armed revolt of the military AND veterans AND consider we veterans KNOW where the national stockpiles are. The very rationale behind our second amendment. FDR managed to get it right, diplomacy. Had his efforts failed, the failure would probably would have been accepted, at least an honest effort was attempted, rather than violation of our right of free association. On that day, our Bill of Rights became a Bill of Optionals.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

who was the bonus armys leader and what did he do to get there?
He walked of course!!!! who was the leader of the bonus army and what did he do before he led the bonus army to fight for unpaid tuitions.


 * W.W. Waters, a vet from Portland, took a lot of responsibility for the March. It was fairly spontanious, although there were many precedents for it (Communist marhces and other veteran marches)... Basically, Waters, before the march, was unemployed. He had been an assistant supervisor as an Oregon cannery before being laid off at the beginning of the depression. He wrote a first-person account, B.E.F.: The Whole Story of the Bonus Army that's a pretty good resouce, although I don't think he's too reliable a narrator. He, and a contigent from Portland got there at first by rail hopping, then governors would simply truck them across their states. other marchers got to D.C. any way they could (walk, rails, cars, whatnot).


 * WHAT unpaid tuitions?! The ORIGINAL act was to offer a certain fee to veterans of WWI. Said fee was FAR into the future when the bonus march occurred, spurred by poverty during the Great Depression. Said marchers were both right and wrong. Right in seeking redress with their government, wrong in demanding premature payments. THAT said, considering the state of the economy, one can easily understand their viewpoint. From the other side, one CANNOT espouse arbitrary use of armored units against an unarmed populace, EVER, or we've become a fascist state or worse. There is ZERO evidence that the bonus army was armed, other than the typical arms of self-defense, IN the terms of THEIR times and even then, were ill armed by conventional definitions of the populace of veterans. Of note, one officer decided HE knew better than his ENTIRE national command authority and proceeded against direct orders, yet he was rewarded with a career, rather than prison. That entitlement permitted a large number of issues to escalate today. A worm taking over multiple networks, due to a 4-star LTC's decision on several levels, ignoring a deputy Sec-Def's DIRECT ORDERS. US Marines apparently urinating upon Afghan corpses, one could go on, but the topics involved are far from open source, unlike my mentions. Amazingly, only two documents are currently of interest involving the bonus march and their contents reveal nothing of interest, unless one were involved with a blood feud, which I advocate even more extremely against and won't discuss further.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Benefits
What were the "certain benefits" they were protesting about?
 * Congress voted to given the WWI vets money, but the checks wouldn't be written until the mid-1940s. the bonus army wanted the money immediately. Kingturtle 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One should clarify, the veterans, some (or many) borrowed (as was PERMITTED BY LAW), against their bonus, during the height of the great depression, demanded relief and were ignored. So, they assembled and protested, seeking redress from their government and were repelled from such by force of arms. Per their view. Frankly, I'd pay real money for the SCOTUS to review the matter and decide if the bonus army was in the right or if the US government was in the right. MY reading of the constitution is, the bonus army was in the right, even if their request was unlawful at the time. If we abandon requests for laws to be changed, we're static and stagnant. No new laws will be permitted, no new rights permitted, no new science permitted, no new taxes (doubt THAT would happen) permitted.

Some silly amendment even SAYS one has a RIGHT to redress of grievances with one's government. THAT said, I'd side against the bonus army for budget and LAW reasons and NOT EVER send the US Army against peaceful protesters!Wzrd1 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus
Washington, DC is not a location where the Posse Comitatus Act applies because it is Federal property under the direct governance of the the united States Congress. In order for the Act to apply to DC, DC would have to be made a State. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Staff, you need to review ALL statutes involving PC. ORIGNALLY, even federal PROPERTIES were part of it. After later legislation, PC was only valid in STATES. In short, the constitution is null and void in areas that were possessions, territories or protectorates. ONLY states were protected. A slippery slope, if I ever saw one... But, nevermind, the patriot act obviated the constitution. One act of congress erases the CONSTITUTION AND ALL AMENDMENTS, just to keep cowards safe. Sorry for the OPINION, but it IS backed by law. In short, while I was away defending the constitution, some erased it for me to return to. Thanks for nothing!Wzrd1 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The numbers gathered
In a modern history book, it states that 20,000 men gathered not 31,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.162.224 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Modern history textbooks can be unreliable. Read the bokks written by James W. Loewen and Howard Zinn to learn more about this. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ANY history book can be unreliable. OR, creation AND evolution BOTH happened, as BOTH are included, with many, many, many permutations, are permitted in textbooks. I can even today, provide, a current textbook on how the Earth is REALLY flat. After seeing one, I calculated what it'd take to make a flat world "appear" round AND what would be required to make it so. As the Earth is NOT a multiple solar black hole, it isn't happening.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Unintended Consequences by John Ross
Unintended Consequences is a work of fiction. It is not just a work of fiction, but one written to advance an ideological agenda.

As such, Unintended Consequences should not be used as a reference for this article.

To the extent the facts in Unintended Consequences are accurate they can be documented from some other source, e.g. academic scholarship, newspaper accounts, witnesses, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, fiction at the time should NOT be used as a reference for the context of the popular views? What should? The CURRENT views of the farticles party? The opinion of JimBob? The direction of the wind when Venus is viewed upon the 32nd day of the 13th month? Rather than what the AUTHORS OF THE TIME? By YOUR standard, no biblical even is justified, regardless of belief, hence it must not have happened.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Burning the Camp
These two sentences make little sense, and are usourced:
 * "Although the public states the army burned down their camp, the bonus marchers burned their own camp. The army had helped set up the tents, shacks, and other dwellings."

Which armies are we talking about when? The Bonus Army or the US Army? Plus these sentences need some sort of source. I'm inclined to reomve them until these issues are resolved, but I'll leave them up for discussion. --Mijunkin (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's still remembered in the US. Largely by veterans. The Bonus Army didn't burn anything, other than wood for cooking. The US Army assaulted their camps and had their way with the inhabitants, against the general opinion of the Department of War, which was against action, based upon the opinion that troops would mutiny against their former peers. Mac decided otherwise and proceeded, even against direct orders, to " restore order" and secondarily, restore the populace in their place, against the "evils" of socialism, of which the nation at large was overall not "considering"... Frankly, do your OWN homework, dammit! I did mine 30 years ago and continue even today.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox removed
While I agree with the removal of the infobox, the image and verifiable information not presented elsewhere should not be removed. Where is the discussion for the removal? --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think that the info box should be returned.  Where was the discussion?--Knulclunk (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't know where the discussion is. I was thinking about customizing the template, but when I looked at how it's being used I'm not sure what problems there are, if any. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a bit of confusion in the reference of killed in action vs commanding officers. I pulled it up and applied a "ignorant eye" upon it and found no secondary reference to killed in action. Only a redirect to "Killed in Action". THAT gives ZERO to information to the uninformed. As a template, I prefer viewing a topic as one to be reviewed by a "space alien", totally unacquainted with our cultures or special knowledge base. One that I rather prefer, as it gives a LOT of information to the reader, rather than an abridged, variable template, potentially political or even primary (but undocumented) viewpoint. Consider Lincoln, viewed by "space aliens that are visiting", then consider TODAY and views. Said "space aliens" would be HUGELY confused!Wzrd1 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MacArthur's View
In his Reminiscences MacArthur refutes many of the claims made in this article and points out the Communist influence on the Bonus Army. Also stated is FDR's program to have New York State pay for said states residents carfare back home and away from Washington. The article also makes no mention of Hoover's patience with the marchers. Food carts actually were used to feed the hungry veterans before they were recalled at the behest of Congress. The article--as it stands now--is lopsided and shabby. Some attention aught to be paid to MacArthur's version of events, seeing as he was there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.88.15 (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Based upon history, if it was cloudy, it was due to commies. Patience means nothing at all when unarmed civilians are run down by tanks. Look at recent news from Syria for an example, then READ OUR CONSTITUTION. Some SEEKING OF REDRESS FROM ONE'S GOVERNMENT comes to mind. So, it is NOT lopsided, unless one is a revisionist and seeks to change REALITY/HISTORY to one's benefit/one's party benefit. What would be next? One party isn't permitted (again) in ELECTIONS? ONE party elections? Where do you stop?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Enough with the tinfoil-hat nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.98.163 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonus Army is somehow related to the Occupy Wall Street movement?
So today I got a wiki message that my removing the occupy movement from the "see also" section needed some background.

Here's the background. Veterans are organized. From this account: "Discipline in the camp was good, despite the fears of many city residents who spread unfounded "Red Scare" rumors. Streets were laid out, latrines dug, and formations held daily." http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm

I think anyone who's watched anything about the various occupy camps around the country wouldn't think they were in anyway disciplined, maintained or organized. idpassr
 * Because you personally don't like the comparison that you're making it doesn't belong? There are reliable sources comparing the two. Maybe it should be added to the article body instead with those sources? --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an emotional investment one way or the other. Despite your assertion that there are 'reliable sources comparing the two', you don't cite them. I used information from an existing cite to illustrate the difference between the Bonus Army and Occupy.

Never mind that if you really thought Occupy and the Bonus Army were so linked, why did the Veterans go to a single location? Why didn't they just make a camp at their respective state capitals, as Occupy did?

But hey, whatever.idpassr (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)idpassrIdpassr (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? Instead of a link we should include sourced content comparing the two?
 * A link in a See also section doesn't require any references. I'm saying that sources like this exist. That's more than enough to keep it as a link. I think we'd need something more scholarly to expand this article. I expect that such references exist as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read the references and I don't see the link. The only things these sources site as these events having in common is the taxtic: a bunch of people camped out, in protest, at a place. If you want to use a see also you should reference the Occupation (protest) wiki page, as it includes a list of other protests that involved occupying an area for a protracted period of time. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.138.119 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have to agree with the sources, just note that there are some that make the link. --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced claim
Background section begins "In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay." This (2008) is unsourced and sounds highly unlikely. It may be derived from this 2005 source: "After the British surrendered at Yorktown in 1781, rumors spread throughout the ranks that the Continental Army would be demobilized without being paid." (http://washingtonspectator.org/home-from-the-war-the-200-year-struggle-of-returning-soldiers-for-their-rights/) but the "rumor" has changed into a "fact." If someone can verify the original claim, please document and revert. Will Sandberg (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the bonus?
What happened to the bonus, did they get it in 1945? S Sepp 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the way that the article ends now, they got it in 1936, after lots of them took FDR's offer of building a highway to the Florida Keys and some then died there in the Great Hurricane of 1935. Rlquall 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And the rest got their payment according to the LAW at the time. Hence, they got their money at the time allocated by law when it was originally provisioned.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So why doesn't the article say that? I have the same question. Laodah 22:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus
In the article...

Washington, D.C., was excluded from the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act which forbade the use of the U.S. military for domestic police activity.

The inclusion of this sentence in a discussion about veterans of the Revolutionary War marching on congress is a total non sequitur in that Posse Comitatus wasn't enacted until 1878, iirc. Plaasjaapie (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it happened BOTH times, resulting in the constitution being null and void in D.C. Well, much of it, anyway, and congress being the ruling body, sort of. Hence how a crack addict was REELECTED, where it'd be unconstiutional anywhere else in this nation, by the constitution (high crimes and misdemeanors).

Of course, at FIRST, the ENTIRE constitution was only considered at a STATE level, only STATES had all of the "Bill of Rights", eventually, common sense prevailed. Just a few things to consider....Wzrd1 (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article text reads that the relocation was done by Congress in the 18th Century to get around a legal restriction enacted by Congress after Reconstruction. Not to mention that the Federal District was established because the States wanted the National Government to be seated in "neutral" territory.  I'm going to remove that block of text as it's flat out wrong. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

updated info for 2017
Hello! I updated some of the conversions from 1924-2016 to 1924-2017 Kb10r (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies
...for my terse (ie. non-existant) edit comment. It should be clear from the article what the actual tank was, but I should have mentioned that. - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semantic edit
Re: Roosevelt. In the lead, the "Franklin Roosevelt" administration was changed to "Roosevelt." Since 20+ years and Teddy's death had intervened, and since the editor claims to appreciate brevity (plus, now a link which any reader can follow to ascertain FDR) this smacks of ideological distinction between the Republican and Democratic Roo-sevelt (hap tip to my dad). The shortening of "President Franklin Roosevelt" to Roosevelt (especially as the first reference to the man himself in the article) smacks of disparagement to the man. Hence the changes. Tapered (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Serious Timeline Issue
In the "Army Action" section, the event timeline is contradictory. Troops form up by 4:00 pm. Then they don't get permission to cross a bridge, and cross at 9:00 pm. Then at 4:45 they attack. Unless you know the geography of Washington, and maybe even if you do, it is very confusing.

This is an interesting story, concerning famous individuals. The Army Report needs to be given a more central location. The timeline needs attention. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of inaccurate category
The addition of the category Category:United States military killing of American civilians is factually incorrect. While there was a single death of a three month old child, the subsequent investigation into the cause of death attributed it to enteritis. This is what is sourced. The hospital spokesman's comment that the tear gas "didn't do it any good" is not a definitive statement on the cause of death. There were no civilian deaths attributed to US military action in any events in this article. If the creator of this category would like an actual example of such an action, I can provide it - assuming they revert their addition to this article and talk, per WP:BRD rather than edit warring to maintain an inaccuracy.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The addition of Category:United States military killing of American civilians to the article is factually accurate.  Just read the article. One or more American civilians was killed by the United States military during the "Bonus Army" incident.  IQ125 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And who are you claiming to be the victim?  Be specific. I see none attributed to the military action. So far I have found eleven articles that deserve your category that you have missed so far. The Battle of Blair Mountain has no sources directly attributing civilian deaths to the military, although there was some involvement of military forces.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of other articles that belong in the +cat, please add them to the article. Best regards IQ125 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, who are you claiming to be the civilian casualty in this article?  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * D'uh! The two veterans killed were civilians. They had returned from war, and been discharged from the army. They were no longer in the army. VETERAN = CIVILIAN. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this a joke?
Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks, commanded by Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur. General, later President, Dwight D. Eisenhower was his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry. The Bonus Army, their wives and children were driven out with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, and their shelters and belonging... all three generals attacking veterans at the same place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.177.62 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If jokes are that sad on your planet, it's a joke. Here on Earth, it rivals Syria in ITS current issues on steroids. Try LEARNING history before commenting on it.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, its not a joke, it's America. Love it or leave it! 72.141.106.240 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Gimme a Break
The layout of this article (sidebar about conflict, belligerents, etc.) makes this out to be some sort of military campaign. It was a civilian protest over veterans benefits overcome with the calling out of troops to disperse the protesters - nasty, but not a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's also included at the bottom under the heading "Major armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces". Hardly major. There are several others listed that are decidedly minor. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right! Why, tanks against men, women and children are the NORM in western society and indeed the world. Syria proves the Fascist States of America right! Read in the sarcasm fully, or continue to take a double helping of moron milk upon your stupid flakes in the morning. I'll NEVER say there were or are saints in ANY national issue, but, apparently, YOU seem to think that the constitution is optional. Something I'll unretire to reinforce by force of arms.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good lord what a hyperbolic and hysteria laden rant. Build a barn with that straw-man will you? Could you clarify ANYTHING you said as it pertains to ANYTHING the op said? It would help to decode your tantrum.  Thanks 56.0.84.25 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy in bonus payment timeline
As the article stands now, the second paragraph states "The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1948." But the fourth paragraph says "In 1936, Congress ... paid the veterans their bonus nine years early," which would mean the certificates would have matured in 1945. Then the 5th paragraph of the Background section states "Congress overrode [the president's] veto [in May, 1924] ... Each veteran was to receive [some amount]. Amounts of $50 or less were immediately paid. All other amounts were issued as Certificates of Service maturing in 20 years". The latter pins the maturity date as 1944 (assuming it took less than 7 months to issue the certificates).

Only one of the three statements can be correct as to the date of maturity. I wonder which it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4100:36A0:3916:BD8F:EE44:C5C9 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of Douglas MacArthur American Warrior as a ref for change in POV
Regarding and, I think better references are available, and I don't think we should be using this potential reference to justify any change in POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgotten man number
This Busby Berkeley number closed the film “Gold Diggers of 1933”. It was supposed to be inspired by the Bonus Army march of the previous year. Some references could make it worth a mention. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)