A Veteran's Protest Play – Why The March of the Bonus Army Now?

Six actors use text and period music to illuminate a little known US historical event when WWI veterans during the Depression marched on Washington to demand a bonus they were promised, but never received. Playwright Isaac Rathbone and Director Cindy Rosenthal discuss why this moment in history matters today and the creative process in creating The March of the Bonus Army.

Cindy: This play tells a true story that is generally not taught in American history classes. Can you summarize what the Bonus Army was?

Isaac: Sure. In 1932, thousands of World War I veterans marched on Washington to demand adjusted compensation, or “bonus payments,” for their service time. During the War, civilians were paid higher wages than the men fighting overseas. Sadly, their lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears, as the US Army forced them out and killed some of them. There was such pride and patriotic fervor showered on these men in 1917, yet they were tragically abandoned as the years went on.

Cindy: What drew you to this specific event in our history? Why?

Isaac: It is an event that had a profound impact, however, as you mentioned, it is not widely known or even taught. As the United States has become involved in a constant string of international conflicts, the next wave of veterans continues to be challenged by the same issues veterans faced 100 years ago.

Cindy: As 2014 marks the centennial anniversary of the start of World War I, we are presenting a play about the plight of some veterans involved in that conflict. Why is this play so important to present now?

Isaac: As we now have the luxury of hindsight, we’re able to see how catastrophic yet incredibly dynamic those four years actually were. Researching the war and the following years, the ripple effects of World War I impacted not just international politics, but everything from race relations to art, music and literature. The Bonus Army is one of these ripples—it was one of the first times that the American public became aware of the struggles that some veterans go through when their military service is over. There was no real concept of “compensation” for veterans before and it helped pave the way for historic policy changes like the GI Bill.

Cindy: Not only is the subject of the play relevant to today’s veterans, it also highlights the right to demonstrate peacefully. The eviction of the Bonus Army conjures up modern sentiments of the Occupy Movement.

Isaac: Absolutely. The Bonus Army set up a massive, yet highly organized, tent city outside Washington. They lived and demonstrated peacefully. The reason for their violent eviction was the fear that they were staging some kind of Communist revolution, which was entirely untrue. Now, move forward in time eighty years, and we have a similar situation with Occupy Movement and their treatment and eviction.

Cindy: One of the elements that I’ve found fascinating about this moment in history was the fact that The Bonus Army was integrated and protestors of all races lived peacefully together.

Isaac: Yes, it was shocking to read that these Bonus Army veterans lived together in peacetime, but were segregated during wartime. The country was even more divided over race during that time period and the undercurrents of those issues are in the play. They are not the pervading issues at hand, but they show just how progressive this movement actually was for the time period.

Cindy: Do you believe this event is relevant to our veterans today?

Isaac: Absolutely. Our society tends to shy away a bit from what happens after the soldiers come home. Our country asks these men and women and their families to sacrifice a lot. So when a war is declared “over,” it’s never really over. And if our society chooses to fight in these conflicts, they must be dedicated to every single aspect of investment in peace and recovery.

Cindy: How did this play end up where it is now, and how did you get there?

Isaac: We were originally presented with the idea of creating something in conjunction with the 2012 Presidential Debate that was held at Hofstra University. There was an event called “Expressions of Democracy” that presented historical figures and stories throughout the day, and we wanted to present a truly American Story.

Cindy: Can you describe your process?

Isaac: I try to do as much historical research that relates to character as I can. The story is already there. What to present in terms of details needs to be figured out, but for the most part the dramatic events are literally written in stone. When I research the history, I make sure it relates to character as much as possible. So essentially, I’m looking for the human element and reactions to the events that have taken place.

Cindy: Why did you choose the particular songs for this play?

Isaac: The songs are almost all classic “Americana” pieces. Each has to convey a certain emotion at a particular point in the play, whether it’s dramatic or playful. A lot of these songs are a part of our culture and resonate historically. I also wanted pieces that a group of contemporary actors could learn and play live. So much of the Great Depression was about making something out of nothing, and that also included music and entertainment. So it’s imperative to the spirit of the play for the cast to be able to pick up a pair of spoons, a washboard and a ukulele and start playing.

Cindy: Almost all of the characters are named after geographic locations. Why did you make that decision?

Isaac: The play covers a lot of ground. Historically and geographically. I felt that it was important to make this more of a universal story about the Bonus Army and not about one single soldier’s journey. Our leading character Portland is a symbol of 20,000 demonstrators, rather than one single individual. It’s important that the one constant in the play is our country.


Bookmark this page

Log in to add a bookmark

Interested in following this conversation in real time? Receive email alerting you to new threads and the continuation of current threads.



Add Comment
Newest First

Cindy, great article. Isaac, great play: I wold love to read it, or if it comes out to the west coast, see it (or better yet: experience it.) Neal: why? (I would say more but to belabor the issue would only to re-hijack the conversation you've already attempted to hi-jack for your own political agenda)BACK TO ISAAC:I would love to know more about the play and it;s music. Is it a play with music or a musical? One act or full length? What are the cast requirements. How do I find out more?

Sounds like a great play. And I agree that the "Bonus Army" was treated horribly, and that the issues (unfortunately) have tremendous relevance to our modern day.

But I take issue with the clauses "our country asks these men and women and their families to sacrifice a lot" and "if our society chooses to fight in these conflicts".

For in reality, then as now, wars are supported NOT by most honest working people, but only by politicians, those that worship them, and those employed by the military-industrial-complex who stand to make a lot of money off it (at the expense of the taxpayers and, especially, the soldiers).

Alas,those whose only knowledge of history and economics comes from what little they remember from their (government-run) public school education tend to be easily persuaded by politicians. But those of us who have thoroughly studied these subjects know that, in almost every case, from "The War to End all Wars" to the present-day situation in Iraq and Afghanistan (which has actually been going on for 30 years, starting with when Osama Bin Laden fought WITH the US-funded and supplied Afghans against the forces backed by the USSR), the United States's involvement in overseas wars has made things, in the long run, worse that it would have been if the US had simply stayed out of it.

So if another war-monger is elected president, whether a republican or (with the help of many war-mongering republicans) Clinton, don't blame the 49% of us who voted for peace for the third World War -- and its horible consequences for the soldiers -- that will likely soon follow theinaugeration.


Thank you for you insight and thoughts. Judging from your reaction to this interview, my guess is that your reaction to the play would be that it is "preaching to the choir." I agree with everything you have said stating modern American foreign policy. The play is not aimed at the 49% you have referenced (though I'm sure most of that percent would enjoy it), but instead at the possible 2% or "those that worship [politicians]." If the play can help open some "government-run public school" minds to look at the bigger picture and long term consequences of war, then the play has succeeded.