In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945. However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

In May of that year, some 15,000 veterans, many unemployed and destitute, descended on Washington, D.C. to demand immediate payment of their bonus. They proclaimed themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force but the public dubbed them the "Bonus Army." Raising ramshackle camps at various places around the city, they waited.

The veterans made their largest camp at Anacostia Flats across the river from the Capitol. Approximately 10,000 veterans, women and children lived in the shelters built from materials dragged out of a junk pile nearby - old lumber, packing boxes and scrap tin covered with roofs of thatched straw.

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. Newcomers were required to register and prove they were bonafide veterans who had been honorably discharged. Their leader, Walter Waters, stated, "We're here for the duration and we're not going to starve. We're going to keep ourselves a simon-pure veteran's organization. If the Bonus is paid it will relieve to a large extent the deplorable economic condition."

June 17 was described by a local newspaper as "the tensest day in the capital since the war." The Senate was voting on the bill already passed by the House to immediately give the vets their bonus money. By dusk, 10,000 marchers crowded the Capitol grounds expectantly awaiting the outcome. Walter Waters, leader of the Bonus Expeditionary Force, appeared with bad news. The Senate had defeated the bill by a vote of 62 to 18. The crowd reacted with stunned silence. "Sing America and go back to your billets" he commanded, and they did. A silent "Death March" began in front of the Capitol and lasted until July 17, when Congress adjourned.

A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry.

By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton's troopers turned and charged. "Shame, Shame" the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.

By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity."

References:
      Bartlett, John Henry, The Bonus March and the New Deal (1937); Daniels, Roger, The Bonus March; an Episode of the Great Depression (1971).

Just bringing up some long forgotten history.

Yup.. heard about that awhile ago. They did a documentary on it.

...and there are some who think that gun owners peacefully protesting the raping of their rights wouldn't be met with the same hostile force.

There was debate on another thread that the USA military would not open fire on its own people.  This is a good example of what could happen.  I've completely forgotten about it.

They never taught us about the BONUS MARCHERS


The 1st I heard of it was in UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

if they'll fire on retired veterans, what do you think they'll do when the order comes down to sieze firearms?

just food for though.

Quoted: Quoted: There was debate on another thread that the USA military would not open fire on its own people.  This is a good example of what could happen.  I've completely forgotten about it. It's quite a well known incident outside the USA. And you are right, this was the US Army firing on it's own veterans, Joe Public would be easier for them. ANdy

To make matters worse, the 3 people in charge were 3 top USA generals in WWII.

Quoted: Quoted: There was debate on another thread that the USA military would not open fire on its own people.  This is a good example of what could happen.  I've completely forgotten about it. It's quite a well known incident outside the USA. And you are right, this was the US Army firing on it's own veterans, Joe Public would be easier for them. ANdy

I did'nt know this. I did'nt learn about this in any history book either.  I wonder what ELSE I don't know

Not one of our finest moments, no.

Not every day that you read that kind of shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong;

1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924
2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.  Their rights were not violated.

When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped.

As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong; 1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924 2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.  Their rights were not violated. When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped. As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong; 1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924 2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.  Their rights were not violated. When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped. As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

Wrong

By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties.

MacArthur disobayed a direct order from the POTUS.

20

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong; 1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924 2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.

So far so good...

However, even though they requested their bonus early, they did so peacefully through public demonstrations and petitioning the government. Nothing wrong in asking Congress for the Bonus early.

Their rights were not violated. When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped. As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties.

Yep. Just following orders.


I'm so glad a peaceful gathering of veterans and their families were routed at bayonet point by federal soldiers using gas and burning their shelters.



If you're so gung-ho about the use of troops on people displaying civil disobedience, I wonder how you feel about the civil disobedience used during the civil rights movement?

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong; 1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924 2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.  Their rights were not violated.

True, that. But it was the Depression, nobody had saved any money in the Roaring 20s, and now they were paying the price. In some cases, wiith their lives. And they wanted the govt. to take care of them. Look what it got them.

"Any government that's big enough to give you anything you want is also big enough to take it all away."- --BARRY GOLDWATER

When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped.

IIRC they were equipped with Thompson SMGs, as were many PDs back then. Weren't some of the marchers dispatched with SMGs?

As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

"Ja, ja, sowas haben wir im Nuernberger-Prozess auch gesagt....hat uns aber nichts gebracht..."

"Bonus Marchers" and police battle in Washington, DC. The marchers came to Washington, DC, to demand their veterans "bonus" payment early from Congress. After several months of camping near the Anacostia River and after several confrontations with police, federal, troops drove the marchers from the city.

I learned about it in high school history. My teacher was and is a lib, anything to make the US look bad, true or not, was in his lesson.  

Quoted:MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

You mean like Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering, and Reinhard Heydrich?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

By the end of the route:    * Two veterans had been shot and killed.    * An 11 week old baby was in critical condition resulting from shock by gas exposure.    * Two infants had died from gas asphyxiation.    * An 11 year old boy was partially blinded by the gas.    * One bystander was shot in the shoulder.    * One veteran's ear severed by a Cavalry saber.    * One veteran was stabbed in the hip with a bayonet.    * At least twelve police were injured by the veterans.    * Over 1,000 men, women, and children were exposed to the tear gas, including police, reporters, residents of Washington DC, and ambulance drivers.

Let this be a lesson to future would-be socialists.

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong; 1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924 2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.  Their rights were not violated. When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped. As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

Yeah these guys REALLY deserved to be burned alive, and shot by our government. Just look at how dangerous they are.

No don't try to find a free market solution to a problem...... Lets just burn 'em out. Your a fucken commi statist. When you are burning alive I will be sure to remind you your rights are NOT being violated. Do you know the sheer ammount of hardware NOT present. How much firepower was available to these vets?!?!?!?

They gathered UNARMED to petition the gov't for an issue. They were law abiding citizens, that were shot and burned out of DC because the generals either acting under orders or alone did it. There is NO EXCUSE for this in the USA. ToddB you shouldbe ashamed of your self

Quoted: There was debate on another thread that the USA military would not open fire on its own people.  This is a good example of what could happen.  I've completely forgotten about it.

Right.  And, remember, these were different times with people who generally felt more "brotherhood" woth other former soldiers.  Consider the products of today's brainwashing.

As another poster said, they were just doing their jobs.  Remember this case  the next time someone says that.  Anytime there is some unwarranted authority given over us peasants, this is what happens.  The founders knew what they were doing when they limited what powers could be given to government.  We've given morer than enough away.

Quoted: Amazing the pity the people on this board for people demanding their free money.

You sicken me.

These men served their country and you say they wanted free money?

If you're so gung-ho about the use of troops on people displaying civil disobedience, I wonder how you feel about the civil disobedience used during the civil rights movement?

Well said, napalm. No problem though, the apologists will be ready to respond with their spin shortly.

Quoted: So how many bonus marchers were massacred? If they were, "fired upon" by the troops led my MacArthur et al. what were the casualties? Enquiring minds want to know. Since we are, after all, equating the bonus marchers to the jews of europe during wwII (I can only assume that is why the nuremburg pictures were posted) Amazing the pity the people on this board for people demanding their free money.

They were desperate during the depression. The US government decided to use FORECE against unarmed American Servicemen who risked their lives for our country INSTEAD of finding a FREE MARKET SOLUTION. EDITIED TO ADD: This was not FREE MONEY. But money promissed to them for their service. Not welfare you prick. These men fought bled and died in the trenches of WWI for us. Not welfare queens popping out more future inmates for more cash.... /EDIT

1 Injury, 1 death, 1 shelter burned was 1 too many. It was a reprehensible act, as bad as any our government has done. Its nice to know we have such lovely fascists like you in the country. Defend big government at any cost the government can do no wrong....... Heil Hitler.

Quoted: Your a fucken commi statist.

You're. Fucking. Commie.

Ahem.

Regardless, it's amusing to hear the Arfcom crowd defend a bunch of protesters that wanted their money early.

In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945

So, was the money paid in 1945?  

Quoted: Quoted: Your a fucken commi statist. You're. Fucking. Commie. Ahem. Regardless, it's amusing to hear the Arfcom crowd defend a bunch of protesters that wanted their money early.

I could care less if they wanted their money early or not. I am against the government using force against peacefully protesting citizens. When free market alternatives were available. There were honorable solutions available, and the government went with force. Just wait till they come to your door just doing their job. The government FUBAR'ed the situation. Plain and simple.

Yeah peacefull assebly is a crime worthy of death. We are Peoples Republic of China, err Soviet Union, er Nazi Germany,err.... I mean the USA, after all....

Quoted: Quoted: Your a fucken commi statist. You're. Fucking. Commie. Ahem. Regardless, it's amusing to hear the Arfcom crowd defend a bunch of protesters that wanted their money early.

Maybe they were assembleing peaceably to petition the Government for early payment of said bonus.

Quoted: Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong; 1) The bonus was not part of the regular pay, it was given by a grateful country in 1924 2) The bonus was to be given, BY LAW, in 1945.  The vets wanted it early, despite the law.  Their rights were not violated. When does the Government have the right to maintain order in the midst of civil disobedience?  Looking through the lens of history, I doubt that the D.C. police of that era were a large enough force to handle that many men, let alone well enough equipped. As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told. Wrong By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. MacArthur disobayed a direct order from the POTUS. 20

Wouldn't be the last time.

Quoted: Quoted: Your a fucken commi statist. You're. Fucking. Commie. Ahem. Regardless, it's amusing to hear the Arfcom crowd defend a bunch of protesters that wanted their money early.

It aint about the money tomislav, its about the US govt firing on its own people that had a constitutional right to peacably assemble. I dont care what there protesting about, or wether their right or wrong, but they dont deserve to get shot at as long as they werent endangering lives.

After reading your opinion on this and waco I think you need to take a refresher course on the constitution.

As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told.

You mean someone really had respect for McArthur?????

Besides his wanton attack on unarmed American civilians and learning how many soldiers & marines died in liberating the Phillipines just so he could keep his "I will return" promise I haven't had any respect for him since college.  

Anyone who defends the government's action in this case is evil.

Quoted: As for losing respect for MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton, they were soldiers following orders, they had no choice but to do as told. You mean someone really had respect for McArthur????? Besides his wanton attack on unarmed American civilians and learning how many soldiers & marines died in liberating the Phillipines just so he could keep his "I will return" promise I haven't had any respect for him since college.

Well SOME people find respect for these people because they were all we had from WWII that the press glorified. But the plain fact is Generals have always been in the rear with the gear kinda people. If you wanna belive that shit about Patton from a hollywood movie be my guest. As to Eisenhower he really did'nt have much to do with the bonus march. It was really Macarthur that was responsable. And we all saw with his clashes with Truman that he was an insane demogogue who had no respect for his superiors. He would've led us down to nuclear war because he had no respect for other nations. Most of these people become "legends" not because of their good generalship but rather because they were in the right place at the right time and did not totally fuck up. Look at Montgomery, he was at best an average General but because he "beat Rommel" he was considered "great".

Quoted: They never taught us about the BONUS MARCHERS The 1st I heard of it was in UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

+1


I lost alot of respect for them men and also realized right then what happens when the military and law enforcement are given bad orders...   they tend to follow them.

LB

They agreed to get paid in 1945.  They should have waited.  They set up an illegal camp and wouldn't leave until their silly demands were met.  

Another of histories unintended consequences.

A veteran myself......over and out!

i dont have much sympathy for the bonus army, the bonus was to be paid later by law and that was what had been passed by congress. the bonus army remained even after they were told that the bonus would not be paid early, they were too large a force to be reckoned with by the local pd and rumor was that there was going to be more than just peaceful protest.

the capital of the republic could not be allowed to be taken over by folks who many feared were willing to overthrow the govt to get their bonus and such were the results.

those who foolishly believe soldiers will not obey orders and fire on formers comrades or civilians, remember a lawful order is a lawful order whether its outcome is ugly or not. also remember that among the first acts the govt of the usa passed after being put into place was a whiskey tax and that led to the whiskey rebellion the us govt sent troops to enforce the tax and put down a rebellion by those who refused to pay the tax.

im sure that the black community could easily give many accounts of being fired on by us troops from harpers ferry and then some for simply seeking liberty.

Gentlemen, we all need to become more knowledgable before we start calling names and getting all angry.

The veterans wanted their bonus money early.  They had every right to petition the government for this.  It is their First Amendment right.

However, the Senate refused their petition in a legal and fair vote.  The country was in a depression and the government did not have the extra money.

But what the original poster failed to report is that the living conditions in the Shanty Town were terrible.  No sanitation.  No running water.  It was a filthy cesspool.

The government advised the veterns to leave the area so that the shanty town could be torn down before the terrible conditions led to mass sickness.

The veterns refused a lawful order to leave the park area.  They had no right to do this.

After several tries to convince them to leave, it finally came to "If they won't leave peacefully, we will drive them out."  And that's what the government did.

Were there excesses by the military?  Sure looks like it.  

But they had no "right" to camp in that area and were breaking the law when they refused to leave.

There are, as usual, two sides to every story.

This one was a sad time and no good outcome seemed possible.

Quoted: They never taught us about the BONUS MARCHERS The 1st I heard of it was in UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Don't rely on a very crowded US history class in High School to do anything nore than skim over the highlights of US history. Not a flame on you, just an observation from someone who has always enjoyed history, a subject almost universally loathed and hated by the students actually studying it. After all, they'd rather be out behind the bleachers getting stoned or something.

I have heard from several National Guard members that they were asked "Would you fire on US civilians if you were ordered to?" by their superiors.

When questions like this are asked, it reminds me of the bonus march and makes me feel very uneasy

Edited for spelling.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Amazing the pity the people on this board for people demanding their free money. You sicken me. These men served their country and you say they wanted free money? If you're so gung-ho about the use of troops on people displaying civil disobedience, I wonder how you feel about the civil disobedience used during the civil rights movement? Well said, napalm. No problem though, the apologists will be ready to respond with their spin shortly. Sorry I sicken you.  Sorry, where are you serving now?

Here we go again. The holier than thou arrogance that unless you have served, you have no right to an opinion and no right to comment on any topic that deals with the military. I won't even bother explaining or justifying anything to you, but I will say that it's difficult to maintain respect for a serviceman when he has the mentality that you have.

tag


never heard of this incident--fine public school education  

Wow. I never knew about this.

Shame! Shame!

Quoted: tag never heard of this incident--fine public school education

Not to defend the education system, but it is impossible to cram even just the history of American in the school time allocated for history.
Some bits have to be left out.
I would like to know if there is an official manual, or if it is left to the teachers discretion, though.