In Response to Jen...

Although Whitman never directly calls his readers to a war for union, this whole poem seems to be indirectly attempting to unite the American people against division and war. Some might say that this, in and of itself, is a call toward open opposition of the war—which may include active resistance. I feel as if Whitman, at this point, is trying to spur his readers on toward action by making them resent the war that is being fought upon their lands. Jen sees this as a complete disdain for war in general, but I see it as a method of reverse psychology to inadvertently push the American people into fighting against that which divides their nation—which, at this point, is war itself.
I do, however, agree with the fact that there is no reference to emancipation in this poem. Where Whitman is very adamant against the civil war, he provides no other alternatives or means of escape. Because this poem facilitated civil unrest about the ongoing war without providing any solutions, it was probably, in the end, more antagonistic towards Whitman’s cause than it was progressive. He does not address the source of the war and nor does he provide his readers with a way to find their way out of the curse of war.
I also agree with Jen’s description of the authors’ attitudes. They seem to view the blood and suffering as something to be observed and studied rather than soaking in the true inhumanity of it all. Both Horton and Whitman seem to be simply taking note of what is happening, and although they do expose the horrors of war, it seems to be on a journalistic level rather than on a personal level. Jen made some very good points and I do stand beside most of them.