Monday, September 7, 2026

Death in the Woods

Sherwood Anderson (1876–1941)
From Sherwood Anderson: Collected Stories

Road by the Mill, 1892, oil on canvas by American artist Theodore Robinson (1852–1896). Cincinnati Art Museum.
“There is a world into which no one but myself has ever entered and I would like to take you there,” Sherwood Anderson wrote in his early impressionistic memoir A Story Teller’s Story (1924). “There are so many people in that land of whom I should like to tell you.” Among them was “the old woman accompanied by the gigantic dogs who died alone in a wood on a winter day.”

Anderson’s imagination had been agonizing over this raw vision, in various forms, for nearly a decade, and it is fascinating to examine how scraps and fragments came together to form a tale that many critics and readers still considered one of his best. “I have found that an impression got for a story must stay in me for years,” Anderson wrote in his final autobiography. “Perhaps I try to write it but it is not there. . . . I think for example of a story called ‘Death in the Woods.’ It is a story I must have tried to write at least a dozen times over as many years.”

The initial germ of the tale can be found in Anderson’s archival notes from around the year 1916. While working on the pieces that would become Winesburg, Ohio, he wrote a fragment in which a reporter stumbles upon a macabre scene in a forest: a pack of dogs dragging a bag of meat from the body of a dead woman. The woman’s face shone in the moonlight as if it were saying to the man, “I have fed the animal hungers of man and beast always, since I was a child. My life has been spent doing that and now that life is gone and I still feed animal hungers.”

The outline of the story began to take shape when, returning from a trip to Paris in 1921, Anderson entered in his notebook a passage describing the woman, now named Ma Winters. She “had got suddenly old. She did not understand how it happened and perhaps did not try. She was only 36 but how long her life had been.” Her husband had met her through “a German family named Swartz where she was employed.” At the Swartz’s farm, she had spent her days feeding the animals: “the pigs, the colts, the sheep. . . . The cows also loved her.” Yet now she lived with a man “filled with wrath that was bottled up inside him.” Her dreams were filled with restless, squealing farm animals; from outside the farmhouse “shouts arose from a thousand throats.”

Finally, in 1926, Anderson published the story in two versions. The first became a chapter in Tar: A Midwest Childhood, a fictionalized account of his own youth; the woman’s death is told in the third person as an incident from Tar’s boyhood. Then, after Anderson sent off the book manuscript to his publisher, he rewrote the chapter. His cover letter to Otto Liveright, his agent, asserted that he had “merely thrown” the chapter into the form of a short story, but the truth is Anderson had done so much more. Removing Tar from the story, he shifted the focus to the woman (now named Grimes), rewrote the last section, and—most important of all—changed the story’s perspective to a first-person narrator. The unnamed storyteller blends the facts of the case—what he and others had witnessed—with experiences and knowledge gained since adolescence, and he brings to readers something more than a biographical account by explaining how and why he had reassembled this “simple” story. “The scene in the forest became for me,” writes the narrator, “the foundation for the real story I am trying to tell.”

Liveright responded to Anderson by reducing expectations. “‘Death in the Woods’ is a fine story but one which I think all the better-paying magazines will reject because they will consider some of the relationships you mention as being illicit and therefore not pure as ivory soap for their readers.” Harper’s Magazine immediately turned it down, but H. L. Mencken at The American Mercury, with about 75,000 subscribers, accepted the story, and it appeared in the September issue—almost three months before Tar was published. The following February “Death in the Woods” received second place ($250) from the annual O. Henry Awards. With minimal, mostly stylistic alterations, the story became the title selection of Anderson’s last collection of short fiction in 1933.

Four years later, Norman Holmes Pearson and William Rose Benét, who were assembling the first edition of their two-volume Oxford Anthology of American Literature, informed Anderson that “Death in the Woods” would be included and asked him if he would write a brief explanation about his writing of it. The author’s note that appears in the edition reads, in part:
It seems to me that the theme of this story is the persistent animal hunger of man. There are these women who spend their whole lives, rather dumbly feeding this hunger. For years I have wanted to write this story.

As for the technique, it was quite definitely thought out. Over the period of several years I have made several attempts that had to be thrown aside. For example I thought it necessary to definitely lift the animal hunger, I wanted to get at, out of the realm of sex. . . . And there is always the desire to get your story imbedded in the whole life of a community.

The story has its particular form, attempts at flashes out of a community life, . . . all of this to get a certain effect. It is a little hard to define. What is wanted is something beyond the horizon, to retain the sense of mystery in life while showing, at the same time, at what cost our ordinary animal hungers are sometimes fed.

*   *   *
She was an old woman and lived on a farm near the town in which I lived. . . . If you don't see the full selection below, click here (PDF) or click here (Google Docs) to read it—free!

This selection may be photocopied and distributed for classroom or educational use.

Sunday, August 30, 2026

The Soldier

Carlos Bulosan (1911?–1956)
From American Flash Fiction: An Anthology

Carlos Bulosan, illustration by Frances O’Brien Garfield for the cover of the March 9, 1946, issue of The Saturday Review of Literature, which contained William S. Lynch’s feature review of Bulosan’s America Is in the Heart. This image was also used for the front cover when the book was reissued in 1973 by the University of Washington Press.
At the end of 1956, Chris Mensalvas, the president of Local 37 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, a confederation of Filipino American cannery workers, published this short piece in the Daily People’s World:
Come the first week in January, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service will miss the annual “report card” of one Carlos Bulosan, a requirement of the more than three million non-citizens residing in this country provided for under the much hated Walter-McCarran Act. For Carlos Bulosan, Filipino-American writer, is no longer around to comply with the law of the land.

If there is any doubt on the part of the Justice Department, I volunteer to testify thus:

Carlos Bulosan, 38 years old, died 11 September 1956, Seattle. Birthplace: Philippines; Address: Unknown; Occupation: Writer; Hobby: Famous for his jungle salad served during Foreign-Born Committee dinners.

Estate: One typewriter, a twenty-year old suit, unfinished manuscripts, worn out socks; Finances: Zero; Beneficiary: His people; Cause of Death: Malnutrition and Tuberculosis.

So, without invoking the Fifth Amendment, I am willing to testify that Carlos Bulosan is dead . . . but . . . will never die in the hearts of the people.
Mensalvas had been close friends with Carlos Bulosan for more than two decades; they met soon after Bulosan, who was probably nineteen years old at the time, arrived in California via Seattle in 1930 or ’31. After a short spell working as a dishwasher in a Santa Barbara County restaurant, Bulosan—physically frail and often sick—moved to Los Angeles and joined his brother Aurelio, who was able to support them both. Carlos spent his days at the public library, soon befriended such local writers as John Fante, and began writing short pieces for Filipino newspapers. In 1932 four of Bulosan’s poems were selected for inclusion in California Poets, an anthology assembled by Helen Hoyt.

“Between 1931 and Pearl Harbor day, I lived violent years of unemployment, prolonged illnesses and heart-rending labor union work on the farms of California,” Bulosan later wrote for the 1955 edition of Twentieth-Century Authors. For much of the late 1930s, he was hospitalized with tuberculosis and kidney ailments. “I had the opportunity to seriously read books which opened all my world of intellectual possibilities—and a grand dream of bettering society for the working man. I stayed in the hospital for two years. But it took me another five years before I was able to put my grand dream on paper in a literate form.” Among those who aided him during his illness were the novelist Sanora Babb and her sister Dorothy, while Harriet Monroe, the influential editor of Poetry Magazine in Chicago, “discovered” and promoted his writing to the wider publishing world. By the opening of World War II, Bulosan’s short stories and poems had begun appearing in such magazines as The Saturday Evening Post, The New Yorker, and Town and Country.

The war in the Pacific fueled interest among the American public in both the Philippines and Filipino Americans. Bulosan published three slim volumes of poetry in 1942 and 1943, including The Voice of Bataan, a tribute to the 75,000 American and Filipino soldiers killed during the last stand against the invading Japanese army. In 1944, he became something of a celebrity with the publication of The Laughter of My Father, a collection of satirical short stories. The first printing quickly ran out, the book was translated into a dozen languages, several of the quirky, witty tales were broadcast to troops, and, all told, more than 150,000 copies were sold. Two years later, he published the work for which he is best known, America Is in the Heart, a fictionalized memoir that earned him front-cover treatment in The Saturday Review of Literature.

In the early 1950s, Mensalvas, now in Seattle, hired his old friend to work as a public relations manager for Local 37 and to edit the union’s yearbook. The end of World War II, the independence of the Philippines from American governance, the Cold War, and the Second Red Scare combined to create new burdens and difficulties for Filipino American laborers. Before 1946, Filipinos were U.S. nationals; now they were immigrants. Bulosan’s labor activities—as well as his association with Mensalvas, who had been a member of the Communist Party—led him to being placed under surveillance by the FBI, and the two men and their friends lived under constant threat of deportation. Bulosan was finishing up a new novel about resistance fighters in the Philippines when he was overcome by a recurrence of tuberculosis; he spent the last three years of his life rotating among the Firland Sanatorium, the Mensalvas family home, the union hall, and homelessness.

Among the manuscripts left at Bulosan’s death are his last novel, The Cry and the Dedication, first published in 1977 following a renewal of interest in his work, and “The Soldier,” a 1,400-word tale that was probably drafted around the time he wrote America Is in the Heart. The story first appeared in a 1983 collection edited by E. San Juan Jr. It is included in the forthcoming Library of America anthology American Flash Fiction, and we reprint it below as our Story of the Week selection.
*   *   *
There continues to be uncertainty about the year of Bulosan’s birth. His baptismal record indicates he was born in 1911, and his sister confirmed that date when she was interviewed by biographer Susan Evangelista. Later documents, other family members and friends, and Bulosan himself gave the year as 1913 or 1914.

Mensalvas’s obituary for Bulosan, quoted above, was reprinted in Carlos Bulosan and His Poetry (1985), by Susan Evangelista.

*   *   *
For this week’s selection, we reproduce Bulosan’s story in its entirety below. You may also download it as a PDF or view it in Google Docs.

The Soldier

They were arguing in the living-room.

“You’ve invited him to come here?” the mother asked.

“Why not?” the daughter said. “He’s nice and intelligent.”

The mother looked at her daughter with horror. “A soldier?” she said. “A Filipino soldier?”

The father came from the kitchen with a glass of wine in one hand and a bottle in the other.

He had heard his wife and daughter arguing when he came home but had gone straight to his room as though he were unconcerned. At the dinner table his wife and daughter had been very solemn. At the end of the dinner his wife had looked strangely at the girl. The daughter had rushed to the living-room and she threw herself into a chair. He had looked at his wife then, long, questioning her purpose. Their argument had already touched him. He had looked at his wife through the years of their life together, trying to put his thoughts together.

“Would you like your daughter to bring a Filipino here?” she had asked him.

He had merely looked at her with the great patience of a husband who had worked dutifully for years to have a decent home.

“Would you?” she had cried.

He had walked to the living-room without answering her. He had stood near the chair where the girl was weeping. He had wanted to understand her. He had bent over to touch her, but suddenly he had straightened up, stood for a while, eager, then walked to the kitchen for the bottle of wine.

Now he came out of the kitchen with a glass of wine in one hand and the bottle in the other.

“Go up to your room, Marcella,” he said.

The girl looked up at her father the way she had always looked at him when she had pleaded for understanding. All through the years she had always looked at him that way. There was a time when she had come home from school and cried to him. It seemed that she had met a boy that time. If it were not for him, she would have neglected her studies that year.

She looked now at her father as though all the years were crowding in upon her, challenging his victories and deep convictions. He could see in her eyes the light of other years, the strong light that once glowed warmly in his eyes; the immortal light that has shone in other lands and times.

If only I could go back to the beginning, he thought. Instead he said to his daughter, “Go up to your room now, Marcella.”

She knew that she was defeated. She jumped from the chair and fled across the room and rushed up the stairway. She slammed the door and flung herself upon the bed, sobbing and kicking the air.

“Martha,” he said to his wife, looking up the stairs. “Where did she meet him?”

“In the public library.”

He walked to his chair and sat down. “Well, he must be a nice boy.”

“Walter!” she cried with horror.

He made a motion to go to her, hesitated, sat back and shook his head. Then he got up and walked to the table for his pipe. Suddenly, the doorbell rang out loud.

“That’s probably he now,” he said.

She brushed the tears from her eyes. The bell rang again. The man walked to the door and opened it. A Filipino soldier was standing in the light rain. He was holding a box of candies.

“Is this Miss Marcella Roberts’ house?” he asked.

“Yes,” the man said, hesitant, pondering. Then he said, “Come on in.”

The soldier walked into the house and stood on the threshold for a moment, the cold of the night outside still clinging heavily on him. The man closed the door and took the soldier’s cap, walking over to the far corner of the room where his wife was waiting.

“You are Marcella’s mother?” the soldier asked.

“Yes,” she said.

“I thought so,” the soldier said. “You look exactly as I thought you would, only you are much younger.”

The man gave him a chair. He stood waiting for the young man to speak. The book and the box of candies were still in his lap.

“Where is your station?” the man asked.

Fort Ord,” the soldier said.

“How is it out there?”

“It is great,” he said. “Nice bunch of fellows in that camp. I like the place. I’ve been studying seriously.”

The man was still standing before the soldier, fumbling deliberately with his pipe.

“I was in the first war—” he started and stopped.

There was a sudden interest in the young man’s voice. “Were you?” he said, jumping to his feet.

“I’ve served ten months in France.”

“Then you understand the feelings of a soldier. They say the other war was fought for democracy. Some of those who fought in it say it’s a lie. I don’t interpret it that way, though. It was fought for democracy all right, but somewhere the ideals were gobbled up by powerful men.”

The man was beginning to feel that he had something in common with the soldier. The only difference was that when he was a soldier, he did not have the chance to clarify his beliefs. He was glad that at last, some twenty-five years later, he had met another soldier who though born in another part of the world, could have been himself, bringing with him the bright hopes he had fought for in that other war.

He walked back to his chair and sat down, facing the soldier. He glanced at his wife swiftly. Looking back at the soldier, he felt a yearning to confide something personal surge through him.

“Have you ever lived in this city before?” he asked.

“Yes,” the soldier said. “Ten years ago. But most of the people I knew are gone. This afternoon I walked around looking at the new stores and buildings. I stopped at the newsstands and touched the magazines and newspapers. I like this city very much indeed. Life itself reacts in the city streets. Ten years ago I used to stand in the station watching the people, and always there was a powerful yearning in me to go away. ‘Someday,’ I used to say to myself, ‘I’ll go away and never come back.’ But I never went away. I remember when I was a little boy my father and I used to go to the mountains just for the sheer joy of walking long distances. I’m like my father, who had a yearning for far away places. It took a war to take me away, though. I may not come back to all this wonderful—” He stopped and looked around the house with a strange affection and sincerity, as though he were storing up the bright image of the room in his mental world. He appreciated all of it.

The man stirred in his chair. “Marcella is ill and she can’t come down,” he said.

“Ill?” the soldier said, frightened.

“She has the flu, but she’ll be all right.”

“I hope she’ll be all right.”

“We’ll tell her that you called,” the mother said.

“Thank you, Mrs. Roberts,” he said. He walked across the room and put the book and box of candies on the table. “I’ll leave these candies for Marcella. This small book of poems is written by a Filipino who lived in this city. He was the first of my people to write a book in English.”

The man felt the strong pride in the soldier’s voice. “We’ll give them to her,” he said.

“Tell her to get well soon,” the soldier said. “Tell her not to get flu any more. Tell her the weather is dangerous this year.”

He walked to the door and the man followed him.

“Goodnight, Mrs. Roberts,” he said, and stepped out of the house.

“I’ll walk with you to the street,” the man said.

The rain had stopped falling and there was a misty moonlight in the trees. There was a fresh smell in the air. The man and the soldier stood under a wide arc of light in the street.

“What you’ve said there,” the man said with feeling, “is what I’ve always wanted to say.”

“I’m glad you feel that way, sir,” the soldier said.

The man gave his hand eagerly. “Good luck, young man,” he said.

The Filipino soldier walked into the night. He did not look back to see that the man was watching him walking away.

Written c. 1946. First published in 1983 in Bulosan: An Introduction with Selections, edited by E. San Juan Jr.

Sunday, August 16, 2026

The Outcasts of Poker Flat

Bret Harte (1836–1902)
From The American Short Story: The Nineteenth Century

“Mining Life in California: Faro,” illustration by Scottish artist John David Borthwick (1824–1892), who spent several years among California Gold Rush miners during the early 1850s. Published in the October 3, 1857, issue of Harper’s Weekly and as a lithographic plate in his memoir Three Years in California (1857), from which the above image is taken.
Perhaps the most bittersweet episode of Bret Harte’s life occurred early in his writing career. During the spring of 1870, Charles Dickens somehow got his hands on copies of The Overland Monthly, the new magazine edited by Harte in San Francisco. The publication’s second issue, dated July 1868, contained Harte’s story “The Luck of Roaring Camp,” while the January 1869 issue included “The Outcasts of Poker Flat.” Dickens forwarded those two issues to John Forster, his close friend and future biographer, who recalled that Dickens “had found such subtle strokes of character as he had not anywhere else in late years discovered; the manner resembling himself, but the matter fresh to a degree that had surprised him; the painting in all respects masterly, and the wild rude thing painted a quite wonderful reality. I have rarely known him more honestly moved.”

A few weeks later, on June 9, 1870, Dickens died after suffering from a stroke at the age of 58; when Harte learned the news, he halted printing of the July issue of The Overland Monthly so he could add a poetic tribute to the writer he had idolized since childhood. A narrative elegy, “Dickens in Camp” evoked the appreciation of the British author in a place as remote and rugged as a Gold Rush mining camp. Harte was still unaware that Dickens was an admirer when, a few days after the issue appeared, a letter arrived from Dickens himself, in which the novelist praised the two stories in the Overland, invited Harte to contribute to his own magazine, All the Year Round, and urged the young writer to visit him should he ever travel to England. During Harte’s first visit to London, in 1878, his friend Joaquin Miller accompanied him to Dickens’s grave. As Miller recalled to a biographer, “Bret is dead now, and it will not hurt him . . . to tell the plain truth, how he tried to speak, but choked up, how tears ran down and fell on the stone as he bowed his bare head very low; how his hand trembled as I led him away.”

Harte’s two groundbreaking stories, along with “Tennessee’s Partner,” which also appeared in The Overland, catapulted him to prominence among American writers of fiction; all three were included in the story collection The Luck of Roaring Camp and Other Sketches. Harte was suddenly the hottest name in publishing: His previous volume of parodies, the locally printed Condensed Novels and Other Papers, was reissued by a publisher in New York; The Atlantic Monthly offered him $10,000 for twelve new stories; and a collection of his poems appeared in 1871, the year he left California for good and headed east.

It is fair to claim that, by the early 1870s, Harte was the most famous (and certainly the best paid) living American writer of fiction. His popularity allowed him to crisscross the country on lecture tours and while he was on one such trip in 1873, he found himself traveling alongside a wagon train of immigrants on the prairie. “One of the young men, after riding beside me for a few moments, suddenly asked me if I weren't ‘Bret Harte.’” he wrote to his sister. “I answered ‘yes’ and asked him why he asked the question. He said I looked like my picture and produced it with the greatest naiveté from his pocket, greasy with handling. He said all my books were in the wagon, and to my great astonishment repeated nearly everything I had ever written.” A note in the literary section of the magazine Every Saturday compared Harte’s new celebrity status to Dickens’s early fame but cautioned, “It is nothing to be ashamed of; but it imposes upon the writer who is made subject of it the severe test of keeping up to the high-water mark of his own achievement, which must be rather trying to a modest man.”

Indeed, within a few years Harte was struggling to make ends meet as his output increased, his quality became uneven, and his popularity declined. His debut novel, the 476-page Gabriel Conroy (1876), was an abysmal failure. He sought a succession of political appointments to pay the bills and, when his position as the United States consul in Glasgow ended in 1885, he remained in England permanently. There, he wrote steadily for the last seventeen years of his life; the edition of his collected works fills some ten thousand pages in twenty volumes. While Harte’s attempts at experimentation, his efforts in other genres, and stories set outside the American frontier were apathetically greeted, his California and Western romances remained extremely popular. As he wrote to his wife, from whom he was permanently separated, “In spite of all the envious sneers and wicked prophecies that follow me, I find I still hold my old audience and that the publishers are quite ready for me when I have anything ready for them. It is quite wonderful also what a large and growing audience I have all over the Continent; anything I write is instantly translated.”

Four decades after Harte died of throat cancer in England at the age of 65, Oscar Lewis, a historian of the American West and a longtime fan, conceded that much of the late writing was “hack work” written to formula. “Gold Rush stories were what were expected of him, and he gave editors (and the public) what they wanted.” As William Dean Howells had put it shortly after the author’s death, Harte “went back to the semi-mythical California he had half discovered, half created, and wrote Bret Harte over and over as long as he lived.” Nevertheless, several of the late stories, such as “The Ingenue of the Sierras” and “The Protégé of Jack Hamlin’s,” are considered among Harte’s best and are still included in anthologies. His major contribution to literature, though, remains the group of tales published between 1868 and 1872 that, according to biographer Axel Nissen, “reinvented the American short story and laid the foundation for the Western.” Or, as Gary Scharnhorst concludes in another relatively recent study, “His best stories are as durable, if not as stylish, as denim pants. In the end, they lack everything but an audience.”

Notes: A sluice-robber is someone who steals gold from the unattended troughs or boxes used for sifting it.

The above passages from the letter to Harte's sister and from Every Saturday magazine are reprinted in Bret Harte: Prince and Pauper (2000), by Axel Nissen.

*   *   *
As Mr. John Oakhurst, gambler, stepped into the main street of Poker Flat on the morning of the twenty-third of November, 1850, he was conscious of a change in its moral atmosphere since the preceding night. . . . If you don't see the full selection below, click here (PDF) or click here (Google Docs) to read it—free!

This selection may be photocopied and distributed for classroom or educational use.

Sunday, August 9, 2026

Aiding the Wounded

Clara Barton (1821–1912)
From The Civil War: The Second Year Told by Those Who Lived It

“The Influence of Women,” illustration by American artist Winslow Homer (1836–1910). Published with the caption, “Our Women and the War” in the September 6, 1862, issue of Harper’s Weekly. (Art Institute of Chicago)
When Clara Barton was eleven years old, her brother David, thirteen years her senior, was part of a crew building a large barn when a ceiling rafter snapped in two and he fell onto the planks covering the unfinished cellar. Although he insisted he was fine in the hours following the fall, within days he was suffering from a severe fever and headache. “He had been my ideal from earliest memory,” Barton wrote in a memoir.
I was distressed beyond measure at his condition. I had been his little protégée, his companion, and in his nervous wretchedness he clung to me. Thus, from the first days and nights of illness, I remained near his side. . . . I learned to take all directions for his medicines from his physician (who had eminent counsel) and to administer them like a genuine nurse. . . .

I realize now how carefully and apprehensively the whole family watched the little nurse, but I had no idea of it then. I thought my position the most natural thing in the world; I almost forgot that there was an outside to the house.
Barton nursed her brother for two years at their home in Oxford, Massachusetts. Reflecting on the various treatments recommended by doctors “twenty miles around,” she later joked that she seemed to have “given him poison enough to have killed him many times over.” Regardless, he eventually made a full recovery, later served as Assistant Quartermaster for the Union army, and died in 1888 at the age of 79.

Barton’s next experience as a nurse wouldn’t occur until she was 39 years old, at the beginning of the Civil War—and her new career began with the conflict’s earliest injuries. On April 19, 1861, the 6th Massachusetts Regiment was attacked by a secessionist mob as it passed through Baltimore on its way to Washington. Five soldiers and a dozen civilians were killed in the fighting. Forced to abandon their supplies and equipment, the troops, including approximately forty injured soldiers, regrouped and finished their journey. Barton, who was employed as a clerk in the U.S. Patent Office, presented herself at the facility for the wounded. As she wrote to her cousin William:
They say the “Massachusetts Boys” are equal to anything they undertake. . . . The wounded at the Infirmary are all improving—some of them recovered and joined the regiment. We visited the regiment yesterday at the Capitol; found some old friends and acquaintances from Worcester; their baggage was all seized and they have nothing but their heavy woolen clothes—not a cotton shirt—and many of them not even a pocket handkerchief.
With the assistance of several friends and other women who had shown up to help, she worked to resupply the soldiers with adequate clothing and toiletries.

In the months ahead, Barton quickly realized that the Union was utterly unprepared for the impending arrival of casualties in Washington, and even less ready to aid soldiers maimed on the battlefield. For the next year, she worked tirelessly to collect and distribute bandages, clothes, food, and other supplies for the sick and wounded. She initially trafficked goods through her own rooms but soon rented a warehouse and distributed her supplies freely among the tented army camps that sprang up around the city. When soldiers told her what they needed most—tobacco—she threw aside her opposition to smoking. “You would smile at the sight of the half yard slabs of plug lying this moment on my table waiting for Dr. Sidney’s Basket of Whiskey to accompany it,” she wrote to a cousin. A letter to her father in May confirmed her fervor:
I don’t know how long it has been since my ear has been free from the roll of a drum. It is the music I sleep by and I love it. . . . We must be ready to bind the wounds or bear them of our own, if necessary. I shall remain her while anyone remains, and do whatever comes to my hand. I may be compelled to face danger, but never fear it, and while our soldiers can stand and fight, I can stand and feed and nurse them.
In the summer of 1862, despite significant opposition from officers and field surgeons, Barton received approval from Quartermaster Daniel Rucker to bring supplies to the front. Operating independently of the army and the U.S. Sanitary Commission, she led a group, including her associates Almira Fales and Ada Morrell, that furnished nursing care and supplies directly to the Virginia battlefields at Cedar Mountain, Second Bull Run, South Mountain, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. The following year, a contemporary chronicler, Linus Pierpont Brockett, summarized in a report on philanthropic war efforts the accounts of soldiers and officers who witnessed Barton’s bravery at Antietam:
A young and gentle woman, in whose veins flowed some of the best blood of Massachusetts, toiled as few men could have done, staunching wounds which might otherwise have proved fatal, administering cordials to the fainting soldier, cheering those destined to undergo amputation, moistening lips parching with thirst, giving nourishing food to those who had sunk from wounds and exhaustion, and ever and anon, closing eyes that had looked their last upon earth, or receiving and noting messages of love to absent ones, from those about to depart to the silent land.
In the years immediately after the war, Barton crisscrossed the country recounting her experiences to audiences. Her lecture included passages that were polished and revised from a letter she had written to a friend in the aftermath of the Second Battle of Bull Run, when thousands of wounded soldiers outside of Fairfax Station had to be evacuated to Alexandria with the rapidly advancing Confederate army closing in. Barton, Morrell, the remaining volunteers, and members of the medical staff accompanied the final group of soldiers on the last train as enemy sharpshooters opened fire and the cavalry rode into view. We reprint that letter below in its unadorned form, transcribed for publication for the first time and included in the four-volume Library of America anthology of eyewitness accounts of the Civil War.

Notes: Major General Jesse Reno commanded a division in the Ninth Corps of the Army of the Potomac; he was killed ten days later at the Battle of South Mountain. Barton notes the deaths of Major General Philip Kearny and Major General Isaac Stevens at Chantilly on September 1 and of Colonel Fletcher Webster, a son of Daniel Webster and the commander of the 12th Massachusetts Infantry, who was killed at Second Bull Run on August 30. The Island was the name for the area of southwest Washington bounded by the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, and the Washington Canal.

*   *   *
For this week’s selection, we reproduce Barton’s letter in its entirety below. You may also download it as a PDF or view it in Google Docs.

Aiding the Wounded

Washington, D.C. Sept. 4 / 62

Mr. Shaver,
Dear friend,

Yours awaited me on my return from Fairfax Tuesday [September 2] evening (or night rather). I left here on Sunday morning in the rain in company with Mr. Wells, Mrs. Morrell, Mr. Haskell, Mr. Alvord, &c. &c., took the train at Morgan Bulleys office, and soon found ourselves at Fairfax. I can not tell you the scenes which awaited our eyes,—the wounded were constantly arriving—but no hospitals this time, only God’s great one under the blue canopy. The men were brot down from the field and laid on the ground beside the train and so back up the hill till they covered acres, the bales of hay for forage were broken open and the ground was “littered” like “bedding” for horses,—they came till dark and then it was dark indeed. One lantern on the ground made a requisition for candles drew a few, the wind blew just enough to put them out every few minutes, and the men lay so thick we could not take one step in the dark, by midnight there must have been three thousand helpless men lying on that hay.

We had two water buckets—5 dippers. The stores which we carried to eat, besides hard crackers,— My one stew pan which I remembered to take, and this made coffee for them, all night we made compresses and slings and bound up and wet wounds, when we could get water, fed what we could, travelled miles in the dark over these poor helpless wretches, in terror lest some ones candle fell into the hay and consume them all, at length morning came, and we sent up the train with 1250, next 1000, next 1100, next 950, and so on. Still the ambulances came down, and the cars went out and we worked on, took the meat from our own sandwiches & gave it to them and broke the bread into wine and water to feed the poor sinking wretches as they lay in the ambulances.

On Monday the enemies Cavalry appeared in the wood opposite, & a raid was hourly expected. (I neglected to tell you that Mrs. Fales sent to me before I started to know if she could go with me and I had the train wait, and sent back an ambulance for her and her stores,—and this made three ladies (Mrs Corner is away) ) On Monday PM all the wounded then in were sent off, and the danger became so iminent that Mrs Fales thought it best to leave, although she only “went for stores.” I begged to be excused from accompanying her, as the ambulances were up to the field for more, and I knew I should never leave a wounded man there if I knew it, though I were taken prisoner 40 times. At 6 clock it commenced to thunder an lightning, and all at once the artillery began to play joined by the musketry about two miles distant, we sat down in our tent, and waited to see them break in but Reno’s forces held them back. The old 21st Mass. lay between us and the enemy and they couldnt pass. God only knows who is lost. I do not for the next day all fell back. Poor Kearney, Stephens & Webster were brought in, and in the PM, Kearney’s and Heintzleman’s divisions fell back through our camp on their way to Alexandria. We knew this was the last. We put the thousand wounded we had then into the train. I took one car load of them, Mrs M another. The men took to horse, we steam off, and two hours after there was no Fairfax Station, reached Alexandria at 10 oclock at night. And Oh the repast which met those poor men at the train. The people of the Island are the most noble band I ever saw or heard of. I staid in my car and fed the men till they would eat no more. Then the people would take us home and feed us, and after this we came home. I had slept 1 1/4 hours since Saturday night but I am well and strong and wait to go again if I have need.

Our forces are all back again in the old places around the city. McClellans army here again and he in command of it all. I am going to search for my friends now. I have told you nothing of the old friends who met me among the wounded and dying on that bloody field. I have no heart to tell it to day but will some time. Can you read this. Oh how I needed stores on that field. To day 2 huge boxes from Jersey have arrived. I dont know when we shall need them next. I will write you a more readable letter in reply to your last to me.

Yours, C.H. Barton

Transcribed from the manuscript in the Clara Barton Papers, Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Sunday, July 19, 2026

The End of Something

Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961)
From Ernest Hemingway: The Sun Also Rises & Other Writings 1918–1926

Leaping Trout, 1889. Watercolor over graphite by American painter Winslow Homer (1836–1910). The Cleveland Museum of Art.
We will never know what exactly was in the letter Ernest Hemingway sent in February 1921 to Marjorie Bump; much later in life, she destroyed all the correspondence she had received from him over the years. But he received a stinging response:
The long delay in writing was caused by the fact that I have been trying to decide just how your remark, that you were good for me, could be justified. Two months consideration has failed to show any point where you have been greatly beneficial. . . . I see it was wrong to think highly of a person of such abomnable conceit, but it did seem queer that you should still hold the idea that you were good for me. As for the phrase you seem so fond of, “a phase in every girl’s life,” I prefer the idea that it never existed.
Taken aback, Hemingway worked up a draft of a defensive and mocking reply to “Red” (one of his nicknames for her). The document, in the Hemingway archives, is repetitive and heavily revised, with entire passages crossed out, and the letter was almost certainly never sent. Part of it reads:
Abominable is not spelled Abomnable.

That should show, without 2 month’s consideration, how I’ve been good for you. Was joking about that you know Red.

Wonder what the grand outburst was about anyway. Suppose I’ll never know. What’s the stuff about conceit? Am I really so doggone conceited?

Was going to write you a sarcastic letter — but don’t feel like it now. Got started remembering that summer of 1919— Best I’ve ever had summer there ever was I guess— Not going to spoil that summer or fall for anybody. It was idyllic — perfect as some days in Spring are and mountain valleys you pass on puffing trains — and other impermanent things.

Afterward you reverted to type and I acted like a cad — and it all came out right. . . .
Ernest and Marjorie first met during their summer vacation in Horton Bay, Michigan, in 1915, and she became a close friend of his sisters. During the summer of 1919, after he returned from the war in Europe, they began dating. That July he turned 20 years old; she turned 18 the following month and would be a high school senior in the nearby town of Petoskey in the fall. “Ernest played the part of a wiser brother, giving me advice on trout fishing such as cutting and skinning perch bait, trolling, and dropping my line at the exact right time for a successful catch,” Bump later told her daughter, Georgianna Main. “Many times we spent evenings together at the Point and built driftwood campfires while we waited for fish to bite.”

During the fall of 1920, before Hemingway left Michigan to work in Toronto, the couple ended their relationship but remained friendly: “I got to thinking about you today and of the good times we have had,” she wrote to him the following summer. “You were the best all around pal I have ever known.” Yet one of Hemingway’s closest friends, William B. Smith Jr., thought Marjorie was wrong for Ernest, and he was apparently open in his disapproval. When she was in college, Bump wrote to Hemingway, “I guess I’d have to try to stop liking Bill. It’s rather difficult to try to keep on liking a person who extremely dislikes in return.”

The paragraphs above outline the basic autobiographical “facts” that inspired two of Hemingway’s better-known Nick Adams stories: “The End of Something” and “The Three-Day Blow,” both of which were published in 1925. Hemingway, however, used Marjorie and Bill’s real names in his fictional accounts of their summer together, an act Marjorie increasingly lamented as the years went by:
It has remained a deep hurt for all my long life because Ernest painted a false picture of me under my real name. . . . It made me so upset that I was never at all comfortable about going back to Petoskey, Michigan, where people knew the real Marge. I felt humiliated to be the object of their pity when they read about me as a young lady to whom Nick [as Ernest] had spoken these words about our relationship: “It isn’t fun anymore.”
Perhaps worse for Marjorie, who lived more than three decades after Ernest’s death, numerous biographers went beyond the facts of their lives and used the fictional aspects and implications of the stories both to describe the real-life person of Marjorie Bump and to exaggerate the relatively benign nature of her brief relationship with Hemingway.

Marjorie’s angry letter of 1921 might have been something of a declaration of independence from Ernest, whose letters had apparently continued to address her as the obsequious high school student he dated two years earlier. As she later acknowledged to her daughter, a “youthful, naïve self combined with hero worship and adoration” might well describe her role while they were dating—but she had grown up. Whatever the cause of the contretemps, Marjorie and Ernest kept in touch for decades. “Other letters from him were such treats that I was in ecstasy. Words from him were always sprinkled with descriptive phrases, metaphors, and poetic images,” she admitted. He even made a surprise visit to Majorie and her family in the 1930s. “During his visit in Florida,” Georgianna Main later remembered, “my mother and father accepted Ernest without bitterness so, to me, he is still the jovial, attractive, magnetic man I met when I was nine. I am sure that Hemingway could not have foreseen how much of a problem it would be for Marge to be misunderstood by his biographers.”

Georgianna Main sympathized with her mother’s “hurt” but believed that, regardless of the fictional embellishments, Hemingway’s two stories depicted Marge in a flattering light. “In the process of creating her character, he actually painted a powerful portrait of her as part of a Michigan setting that he had loved. Hemingway's Marge possesses dignity, discipline, poise, serenity, and her own kind of courage under the stress of rejection. Such qualities will make her immortal because she will never be lost to the readers of the world.”

*   *   *
This week’s selectionis appears in its entirety below. You may also download it as a PDF or view it in Google Docs.

The End of Something

In the old days Hortons Bay was a lumbering town. No one who lived in it was out of sound of the big saws in the mill by the lake. Then one year there were no more logs to make lumber. The lumber schooners came into the bay and were loaded with the cut of the mill that stood stacked in the yard. All the piles of lumber were carried away. The big mill building had all its machinery that was removable taken out and hoisted on board one of the schooners by the men who had worked in the mill. The schooner moved out of the bay toward the open lake carrying the two great saws, the traveling carriage that hurled the logs against the revolving, circular saws and all the rollers, wheels, belts and iron piled on a hull-deep load of lumber. Its open hold covered with canvas and lashed tight, the sails of the schooner filled and it moved out into the open lake, carrying with it everything that had made the mill a mill and Hortons Bay a town.

The one-story bunk houses, the eating-house, the company store, the mill offices, and the big mill itself stood deserted in the acres of sawdust that covered the swampy meadow by the shore of the bay.

Ten years later there was nothing of the mill left except the broken white limestone of its foundations showing through the swampy second growth as Nick and Marjorie rowed along the shore. They were trolling along the edge of the channel-bank where the bottom dropped off suddenly from sandy shallows to twelve feet of dark water. They were trolling on their way to the point to set night lines for rainbow trout.

“There’s our old ruin, Nick,” Marjorie said.

Nick, rowing, looked at the white stone in the green trees.

“There it is,” he said.

“Can you remember when it was a mill?” Marjorie asked.

“I can just remember,” Nick said.

“It seems more like a castle,” Marjorie said.

Nick said nothing. They rowed on out of sight of the mill, following the shore line. Then Nick cut across the bay.

“They aren’t striking,” he said.

“No,” Marjorie said. She was intent on the rod all the time they trolled, even when she talked. She loved to fish. She loved to fish with Nick.

Close beside the boat a big trout broke the surface of the water. Nick pulled hard on one oar so the boat would turn and the bait spinning far behind would pass where the trout was feeding. As the trout’s back came up out of the water the minnows jumped wildly. They sprinkled the surface like a handful of shot thrown into the water. Another trout broke water, feeding on the other side of the boat.

“They’re feeding,” Marjorie said.

“But they won’t strike,” Nick said.

He rowed the boat around to troll past both the feeding fish, then headed it for the point. Marjorie did not reel in until the boat touched the shore.

They pulled the boat up the beach and Nick lifted out a pail of live perch. The perch swam in the water in the pail. Nick caught three of them with his hands and cut their heads off and skinned them while Marjorie chased with her hands in the bucket, finally caught a perch, cut its head off and skinned it. Nick looked at her fish.

“You don’t want to take the ventral fin out,” he said. “It’ll be all right for bait but it’s better with the ventral fin in.”

He hooked each of the skinned perch through the tail. There were two hooks attached to a leader on each rod. Then Marjorie rowed the boat out over the channel-bank, holding the line in her teeth, and looking toward Nick, who stood on the shore holding the rod and letting the line run out from the reel.

“That’s about right,” he called.

“Should I let it drop?” Marjorie called back, holding the line in her hand.

“Sure. Let it go.” Marjorie dropped the line overboard and watched the baits go down through the water.

She came in with the boat and ran the second line out the same way. Each time Nick set a heavy slab of driftwood across the butt of the rod to hold it solid and propped it up at an angle with a small slab. He reeled in the slack line so the line ran taut out to where the bait rested on the sandy floor of the channel and set the click on the reel. When a trout, feeding on the bottom, took the bait it would run with it, taking line out of the reel in a rush and making the reel sing with the click on.

Marjorie rowed up the point a little way so she would not disturb the line. She pulled hard on the oars and the boat went way up the beach. Little waves came in with it. Marjorie stepped out of the boat and Nick pulled the boat high up the beach.

“What’s the matter, Nick?” Marjorie asked.

“I don’t know,” Nick said, getting wood for a fire.

They made a fire with driftwood. Marjorie went to the boat and brought a blanket. The evening breeze blew the smoke toward the point, so Marjorie spread the blanket out between the fire and the lake.

Marjorie sat on the blanket with her back to the fire and waited for Nick. He came over and sat down beside her on the blanket. In back of them was the close second-growth timber of the point and in front was the bay with the mouth of Hortons Creek. It was not quite dark. The firelight went as far as the water. They could both see the two steel rods at an angle over the dark water. The fire glinted on the reels.

Marjorie unpacked the basket of supper.

“I don’t feel like eating,” said Nick.

“Come on and eat, Nick.”

“All right.”

They ate without talking, and watched the two rods and the fire-light in the water.

“There’s going to be a moon tonight,” said Nick. He looked across the bay to the hills that were beginning to sharpen against the sky. Beyond the hills he knew the moon was coming up.

“I know it,” Marjorie said happily.

“You know everything,” Nick said.

“Oh, Nick, please cut it out! Please, please don’t be that way!”

“I can’t help it,” Nick said. “You do. You know everything. That’s the trouble. You know you do.”

Marjorie did not say anything.

“I’ve taught you everything. You know you do. What don’t you know, anyway?”

“Oh, shut up,” Marjorie said. “There comes the moon.”

They sat on the blanket without touching each other and watched the moon rise.

“You don’t have to talk silly,” Marjorie said; “what’s really the matter?”

“I don’t know.”

“Of course you know.”

“No I don’t.”

“Go on and say it.”

Nick looked on at the moon, coming up over the hills.

“It isn’t fun any more.”

He was afraid to look at Marjorie. Then he looked at her.

She sat there with her back toward him. He looked at her back.

“It isn’t fun any more. Not any of it.”

She didn’t say anything. He went on. “I feel as though everything was gone to hell inside of me. I don’t know, Marge. I don’t know what to say.”

He looked on at her back.

“Isn’t love any fun?” Marjorie said.

“No,” Nick said. Marjorie stood up. Nick sat there, his head in his hands.

“I’m going to take the boat,” Marjorie called to him. “You can walk back around the point.”

“All right,” Nick said. “I’ll push the boat off for you.”

“You don’t need to,” she said. She was afloat in the boat on the water with the moonlight on it. Nick went back and lay down with his face in the blanket by the fire. He could hear Marjorie rowing on the water.

He lay there for a long time. He lay there while he heard Bill come into the clearing, walking around through the woods.

He felt Bill coming up to the fire. Bill didn’t touch him, either.

“Did she go all right?” Bill said.

“Oh, yes,” Nick said, lying, his face on the blanket.

“Have a scene?”

“No, there wasn’t any scene.”

“How do you feel?”

“Oh, go away, Bill! Go away for a while.”
Bill selected a sandwich from the lunch basket and walked over to have a look at the rods.

From In Our Time (1925).

Saturday, July 11, 2026

Bread

Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
From American Food Writing: An Anthology With Classic Recipes

“Walden Pond from Emerson’s Cliff,” hand-colored lantern slide created c. 1917 from a photograph taken in 1899 by Herbert Wendell Gleason (1855–1937). Courtesy of the William Munroe Special Collections at the Concord Free Public Library.
Two decades ago, Library of America published the anthology American Food Writing, which included a passage on bread from Walden by Henry David Thoreau. The late Molly O’Neill (1952–2019), the book’s editor, introduced the selection with the following headnote:

In his classic Walden (1854), Henry David Thoreau investigates the possibilities of a self-sufficient mode of life—a life in harmony with nature, free from the system of entanglements, compromises, and sacrifices commonly known as civilization. Having first obtained for himself a rudimentary shelter near Walden Pond, he turned of course to the question of what to eat. And here, as in most things in Walden, he found ample satisfaction in bare essentials: purslane, a weed he gathered in the local cornfields, made a good dinner simply “boiled and salted.”

Even bread—one of the most basic and elemental parts of an everyday diet, as the proverb would have it—he realized he could simplify. A well-puffed loaf, it was conventionally believed, was the only healthy and wholesome kind. But Thoreau challenges his readers to see such claims for what they may be—propaganda for costly yeast and wheat flour—and to consider the moral superiority of an unleavened bread made of rough-ground, native corn. His notes on watermelon likewise affirm his underlying credo: “Our diet . . . must answer to the season.”

A major spiritual ancestor of many today who look for locally grown, organic foods, Thoreau seems not, however, to have been especially motivated by a concern for flavor—for the better taste of natural fare. To critics who questioned his austerities, he had a simple answer: “I can live on board nails.”

Thoreau began his stay at Walden Pond on July 4, 1845, a week shy of his 28th birthday, and remained for over two years, until September 6, 1847. The section in Walden on bread follows his famous admission that, during his first months of self-sustenance, he spent under $9.00 (about $350 in today’s dollars) on food he was unable to raise or gather himself. He itemized “the expense of food for eight months, namely, from July 4th to March 1st, the time when these estimates were made,” and he divided the list into two groups, foodstuffs that proved essential or appreciated and those that “failed,” which appear to be items he regretted or were not worth the expense:
Rice, .......... $ 1.73½
Molasses, .......... 1.73     Cheapest form of the saccharine.
Rye meal, .......... 1.04¾
Indian meal, .......... 0.99¾     Cheaper than rye.
Pork, .......... 0.22

All experiments which failed:
Flour, .......... 0.88     Costs more than Indian meal [cornmeal], both money and trouble.
Sugar, .......... 0.80
Lard, .......... 0.65
Apples, .......... 0.25
Dried apple, .......... 0.22
Sweet potatoes, .......... 0.10
One pumpkin, .......... 0.06
One watermelon, .......... 0.02
Salt, .......... 0.03
“Yes, I did eat $8.74, all told,” he concluded, “but I should not thus unblushingly publish my guilt, if I did not know that most of my readers were equally guilty with myself, and that their deeds would look no better in print.”

Notes: Primarily used today as a household cleanser, sal soda, or sodium carbonate, was formerly used in tiny amounts as a leavening agent. (Sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda, was not readily available in the U.S. until shortly after Thoreau’s trip to Walden.) The instructions for making bread by Marcus Porcius Cato (aka Cato the Elder) are from De Agri Cultura (On Agriculture), written about 160 BCE. The two lines about making “liquor to sweeten our lips” are from “New England Annoyances,” an anonymously written song from the early seventeenth century.

*   *   *
For this week’s selection, we depart from the usual format and reproduce Thoreau’s text below. You may also download it as a PDF or view it in Google Docs, and this selection may be photocopied and distributed for classroom or educational use.

Bread

I learned from my two years’ experience that it would cost incredibly little trouble to obtain one’s necessary food, even in this latitude; that a man may use as simple a diet as the animals, and yet retain health and strength. I have made a satisfactory dinner, satisfactory on several accounts, simply off a dish of purslane (Portulaca oleracea) which I gathered in my cornfield, boiled and salted. I give the Latin on account of the savoriness of the trivial name. And pray what more can a reasonable man desire, in peaceful times, in ordinary noons, than a sufficient number of ears of green sweet-corn boiled, with the addition of salt? Even the little variety which I used was a yielding to the demands of appetite, and not of health. Yet men have come to such a pass that they frequently starve, not for want of necessaries, but for want of luxuries; and I know a good woman who thinks that her son lost his life because he took to drinking water only.

The reader will perceive that I am treating the subject rather from an economic than a dietetic point of view, and he will not venture to put my abstemiousness to the test unless he has a well-stocked larder.

Bread I at first made of pure Indian meal and salt, genuine hoe-cakes, which I baked before my fire out of doors on a shingle or the end of a stick of timber sawed off in building my house; but it was wont to get smoked and to have a piny flavor. I tried flour also; but have at last found a mixture of rye and Indian meal most convenient and agreeable. In cold weather it was no little amusement to bake several small loaves of this in succession, tending and turning them as carefully as an Egyptian his hatching eggs. They were a real cereal fruit which I ripened, and they had to my senses a fragrance like that of other noble fruits, which I kept in as long as possible by wrapping them in cloths. I made a study of the ancient and indispensable art of bread-making, consulting such authorities as offered, going back to the primitive days and first invention of the unleavened kind, when from the wildness of nuts and meats men first reached the mildness and refinement of this diet, and travelling gradually down in my studies through that accidental souring of the dough which, it is supposed, taught the leavening process, and through the various fermentations thereafter, till I came to “good, sweet, wholesome bread,” the staff of life. Leaven, which some deem the soul of bread, the spiritus which fills its cellular tissue, which is religiously preserved like the vestal fire,— some precious bottle-full, I suppose, first brought over in the Mayflower, did the business for America, and its influence is still rising, swelling, spreading, in cerealian billows over the land,— this seed I regularly and faithfully procured from the village, till at length one morning I forgot the rules, and scalded my yeast; by which accident I discovered that even this was not indispensable,— for my discoveries were not by the synthetic but analytic process,— and I have gladly omitted it since, though most housewives earnestly assured me that safe and wholesome bread without yeast might not be, and elderly people prophesied a speedy decay of the vital forces. Yet I find it not to be an essential ingredient, and after going without it for a year am still in the land of the living; and I am glad to escape the trivialness of carrying a bottle-full in my pocket, which would sometimes pop and discharge its contents to my discomfiture.

It is simpler and more respectable to omit it. Man is an animal who more than any other can adapt himself to all climates and circumstances. Neither did I put any sal soda, or other acid or alkali, into my bread. It would seem that I made it according to the recipe which Marcus Porcius Cato gave about two centuries before Christ. “Panem depsticium sic facito. Manus mortariumque bene lavato. Farinam in mortarium indito, aquæ paulatim addito, subigitoque pulchre. Ubi bene subegeris, defingito, coquitoque sub testu.” Which I take to mean— “Make kneaded bread thus. Wash your hands and trough well. Put the meal into the trough, add water gradually, and knead it thoroughly. When you have kneaded it well, mould it, and bake it under a cover,” that is, in a baking-kettle. Not a word about leaven. But I did not always use this staff of life. At one time, owing to the emptiness of my purse, I saw none of it for more than a month.

Every New Englander might easily raise all his own breadstuffs in this land of rye and Indian corn, and not depend on distant and fluctuating markets for them. Yet so far are we from simplicity and independence that, in Concord, fresh and sweet meal is rarely sold in the shops, and hominy and corn in a still coarser form are hardly used by any. For the most part the farmer gives to his cattle and hogs the grain of his own producing, and buys flour, which is at least no more wholesome, at a greater cost, at the store. I saw that I could easily raise my bushel or two of rye and Indian corn, for the former will grow on the poorest land, and the latter does not require the best, and grind them in a hand-mill, and so do without rice and pork; and if I must have some concentrated sweet, I found by experiment that I could make a very good molasses either of pumpkins or beets, and I knew that I needed only to set out a few maples to obtain it more easily still, and while these were growing I could use various substitutes beside those which I have named, “For,” as the Forefathers sang,—

“we can make liquor to sweeten our lips
Of pumpkins and parsnips and walnut-tree chips.”

Finally, as for salt, that grossest of groceries, to obtain this might be a fit occasion for a visit to the seashore, or, if I did without it altogether, I should probably drink the less water. I do not learn that the Indians ever troubled themselves to go after it.

Thus I could avoid all trade and barter, so far as my food was concerned, and having a shelter already, it would only remain to get clothing and fuel. The pantaloons which I now wear were woven in a farmer’s family,— thank Heaven there is so much virtue still in man; for I think the fall from the farmer to the operative as great and memorable as that from the man to the farmer;— and in a new country fuel is an encumbrance. As for a habitat, if I were not permitted still to squat, I might purchase one acre at the same price for which the land I cultivated was sold— namely, eight dollars and eight cents. But as it was, I considered that I enhanced the value of the land by squatting on it.

There is a certain class of unbelievers who sometimes ask me such questions as, if I think that I can live on vegetable food alone; and to strike at the root of the matter at once,— for the root is faith,— I am accustomed to answer such, that I can live on board nails. If they cannot understand that, they cannot understand much that I have to say. For my part, I am glad to hear of experiments of this kind being tried; as that a young man tried for a fortnight to live on hard, raw corn on the ear, using his teeth for all mortar. The squirrel tribe tried the same and succeeded. The human race is interested in these experiments, though a few old women who are incapacitated for them, or who own their thirds in mills, may be alarmed.

Originally published in Walden; or, Life in the Woods, 1854.

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Daniel Webster (1782–1852)
From The Living Declaration: A Biography of America’s Founding Text

“Funeral thoughts, excited by the death of John Adams and Thos. Jefferson on the Fourth of July, 1826, the jubilee of independence,” a broadside published in Boston following the deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1826. Printed by Howe & Norton. (Library of Congress)
The introduction to this week’s selection is by Ted Widmer, excerpted from his new book, The Living Declaration, published by Library of America:

With exquisite timing, Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826: Jefferson at noon, Adams a few hours later. It was the perfect day for the two elderly statesmen to meet “the Great Legislator of the Universe,” as Adams once referred to God, in a declaration of his own, the preamble to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Americans were already inclined to see the hand of Providence in all that they did; here, it seemed, was confirmation that they had a special destiny. The co-demise is still regarded as one of the more remarkable coincidences in American history, and it has cast an enduring, almost supernatural glow on the Declaration of Independence. Sixteen years earlier, in 1809, another signer, Benjamin Rush, described a dream in which he had a premonition that Adams and Jefferson would expire “nearly at the same time.” Now it had come to pass.

Of the many eulogies delivered around the country for these two giants, none captured the public imagination more than the one Daniel Webster delivered to a packed crowd in Boston’s Faneuil Hall. At a time when oratory served to entertain as well as edify, Webster (then a congressman, soon to be a U.S. senator) took his audience back to Philadelphia, fifty years earlier, and offered an almost minute-by-minute account of the tense deliberations that led to the Declaration. Five days later, the Boston city council ordered that seven thousand copies be printed “for the use of the citizens.”

Webster had done his research well. The imagined language he put into the mouth of John Adams often echoed actual quotations. A case in point: just days before Adams’s death, the Reverend George Whitney, who would preach the sermon at the former president’s funeral, paid a call on the old patriarch. He later recorded the encounter: “Spent a few minutes with him in conversation, and took from him a toast, to be presented on the Fourth of July as coming from him. I should have liked a longer one; but as it is, this will be acceptable. ‘I will give you,’ said he, ‘Independence forever!’ He was asked if he would not add any thing to it, and he replied, ‘not a word.’”

*   *   *

Notes: John Hancock (1737–1793) served as president of the Continental Congress. The “venerable colleague” to whom Adams refers is Samuel Adams. In April 1775, Massachusetts’s last royal governor, the British general Thomas Gage, received instructions from Lord Dartmouth, the British secretary of state for the colonies, to arrest Hancock and Adams as “the principal actors and abettors in the Provincial congress whose proceedings appear in every light to be acts of treason and rebellion.”

*   *   *
For this week’s selection, we depart from the usual format and reproduce the text of the excerpt from Webster’s speech below. You may also download it as a PDF or view it in Google Docs, and this selection may be photocopied and distributed for classroom or educational use.

A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, August 2, 1826.
. . . Let us, then, bring before us the assembly, which was about to decide a question thus big with the fate of empire. Let us open their doors, and look in upon their deliberations. Let us survey the anxious and care-worn countenances, let us hear the firm-toned voices, of this band of patriots.

HANCOCK presides over the solemn sitting; and one of those not yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence, is on the floor, and is urging his reasons for dissenting from the declaration.

‘Let us pause! This step, once taken, cannot be retraced. This resolution, once passed, will cut off all hope of reconciliation. If success attend the arms of England, we shall then be no longer colonies, with charters, and with privileges; these will all be forfeited by this act; and we shall be in the condition of other conquered people, at the mercy of the conquerors. For ourselves, we may be ready to run the hazard; but are we ready to carry the country to that length? Is success so probable as to justify it? Where is the military, where the naval power, by which we are to resist the whole strength of the arm of England, for she will exert that strength to the utmost? Can we rely on the constancy and perseverance of the people? or will they not act, as the people of other countries have acted, and wearied with a long war, submit, in the end, to a worse oppression? While we stand on our old ground, and insist on redress of grievances, we know we are right, and are not answerable for consequences. Nothing, then, can be imputable to us. But if we now change our object, carry our pretensions further, and set up for absolute independence, we shall lose the sympathy of mankind. We shall no longer be defending what we possess, but struggling for something which we never did possess, and which we have solemnly and uniformly disclaimed all intention of pursuing, from the very outset of the troubles. Abandoning thus our old ground, of resistance only to arbitrary acts of oppression, the nations will believe the whole to have been mere pretence, and they will look on us, not as injured, but as ambitious, subjects. I shudder, before this responsibility. It will be on us, if relinquishing the ground we have stood on so long, and stood on so safely, we now proclaim independence, and carry on the war for that object, while these cities burn, these pleasant fields whiten and bleach with the bones of their owners, and these streams run blood. It will be upon us, it will be upon us, if failing to maintain this unseasonable and ill-judged declaration, a sterner despotism, maintained by military power, shall be established over our posterity, when we ourselves, given up by an exhausted, a harrassed, a misled people, shall have expiated our rashness and atoned for our presumption, on the scaffold.’

It was for Mr. Adams to reply to arguments like these. We know his opinions, and we know his character. He would commence with his accustomed directness and earnestness.

‘Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand, and my heart, to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning, we aimed not at independence. But there’s a Divinity which shapes our ends. The injustice of England has driven us to arms; and, blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persisted, till independence is now within our grasp. We have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. Why then should we defer the declaration? Is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconciliation with England, which shall leave either safety to the country and its liberties, or safety to his own life, and his own honor? Are not you, sir, who sit in that chair, is not he, our venerable colleague near you, are you not both already the proscribed and predestined objects of punishment and of vengeance? Cut off from all hope of royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power of England remains, but outlaws? If we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean to submit to the measures of parliament, Boston port-bill and all? Do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to powder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? I know we do not mean to submit. We never shall submit. Do we intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into by men, that plighting, before God, of our sacred honor to Washington, when putting him forth to incur the dangers of war, as well as the political hazards of the times, we promised to adhere to him, in every extremity, with our fortunes and our lives? I know there is not a man here, who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted faith fall to the ground. For myself, having, twelve months ago, in this place, moved you, that George Washington be appointed commander of the forces, raised or to be raised, for defence of American liberty, may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I hesitate or waver, in the support I give him. The war, then, must go on. We must fight it through. And if the war must go on, why put off longer the Declaration of Independence? That measure will strengthen us. It will give us character abroad. The nations will then treat with us, which they never can do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects, in arms against our sovereign. Nay I maintain that England, herself, will sooner treat for peace with us on the footing of Independence, than consent, by repealing her acts, to acknowledge that her whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and oppression. Her pride will be less wounded, by submitting to that course of things which now predestinates our independence, than by yielding the points in controversy to her rebellious subjects. The former she would regard as the result of fortune; the latter she would feel as her own deep disgrace. Why then, why then, sir, do we not as soon as possible, change this from a civil to a national war? And since we must fight it through, why not put ourselves in a state to enjoy all the benefits of victory, if we gain the victory?

If we fail, it can be no worse for us. But we shall not fail. The cause will raise up armies; the cause will create navies. The people, the people, if we are true to them, will carry us, and will carry themselves, gloriously, through this struggle. I care not how fickle other people have been found. I know the people of these colonies, and I know that resistance to British aggression is deep and settled in their hearts and cannot be eradicated. Every colony, indeed, has expressed its willingness to follow, if we but take the lead. Sir, the declaration will inspire the people with increased courage. Instead of a long and bloody war for restoration of privileges, for redress of grievances, for chartered immunities, held under a British king, set before them the glorious object of entire independence, and it will breathe into them anew the breath of life. Read this declaration at the head of the army; every sword will be drawn from its scabbard, and the solemn vow uttered, to maintain it, or to perish on the bed of honor. Publish it from the pulpit; religion will approve it, and the love of religious liberty will cling round it, resolved to stand with it, or fall with it. Send it to the public halls; proclaim it there; let them hear it, who heard the first roar of the enemy’s cannon; let them see it, who saw their brothers and their sons fall on the field of Bunkerhill, and in the streets of Lexington and Concord, and the very walls will cry out in its support.

Sir, I know the uncertainty of human affairs, but I see, I see clearly, through this day’s business. You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to the time, when this declaration shall be made good. We may die; die, colonists; die, slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. Be it so. Be it so. If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready, at the appointed hour of sacrifice, come when that hour may. But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country.

But whatever may be our fate, be assured, be assured, that this declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. Through the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future, as the sun in Heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it, with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. On its annual return they will shed tears, copious, gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. Sir, before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off, as I begun, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment; independence, now; and INDEPENDENCE FOREVER.’

And so that day shall be honored, illustrious prophet and patriot! so that day shall be honored, and as often as it returns, thy renown shall come along with it, and the glory of thy life, like the day of thy death, shall not fail from the remembrance of men. . . .

Excerpted from Daniel Webster’s A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, August 2, 1826 (Boston: Cummings, Hilliard and Company, 1826) and reprinted in The Living Declaration.