Alex B. Meek
Wouldst thou have me love thee, dearest,
With a woman’s proudest heart,
Which shall ever hold thee nearest,
Shrined in its inmost heart?
Listen, then! My country’s calling
On her sons to meet the foe!
Leave these groves of rose and myrtle;
Drop thy dreamy harp of love!
Like young Korner–scorn the turtle,
When the eagle screams above!
Dost thou pause?–Let dastards dally–
Do thou for thy country fight!
‘Neath her noble emblem rally–
“God, our country, and our right!”
Listen! now her trumpet’s calling
On her sons to meet the foe!
Woman’s heart is soft and tender,
But ’tis proud and faithful too:
Shall she be her land’s defender?
Lover! Soldier! up and do!
Seize thy father’s ancient falchion,
Which once flashed as freedom’s star!
Till sweet peace–the bow and halcyon,
Stilled the stormy strife of war.
Listen! now thy country’s calling
On her sons to meet her foe!
Sweet is love in moonlight bowers!
Sweet the altar and the flame!
Sweet the spring-time with her flowers!
Sweeter far the patriot’s name!
Should the God who smiles above thee,
Doom thee to a soldier’s grave,
Hearts will break, but fame will love thee,
Canonized among the brave!
Listen, then! thy country’s calling
On her sons to meet the foe!
Rather would I view thee lying
On the last red field of strife,
‘Mid thy country’s heroes dying,
Than become a dastard’s wife!
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
You may find this and other poems here.
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem speaks in a voice that blends romance and command, using the figure of a woman not as a passive mourner but as an active moral force pushing a man toward war. Love is present from the first lines, but it is immediately placed under conditions. Affection is offered, even promised, yet only if it aligns with duty to country. The poem does not pretend there is no cost to this choice, but it insists that any cost is outweighed by honor.
What stands out early is how clearly the speaker frames love as something that must prove itself. The beloved is not asked what he feels or fears. Instead, he is challenged. The country’s call overrides private desire, poetry, music, and leisure. The “dreamy harp of love” is something to be put aside when the eagle screams. Art, softness, and hesitation are treated as distractions in a moment that demands action. The reference to Körner reinforces this, pointing to a model where poetry and war coexist, but where war ultimately claims priority.
The poem leans heavily on contrast. Love versus duty, softness versus pride, peace versus war. These are not presented as equal choices. The speaker openly ranks them. Romantic love is sweet, but patriotism is sweeter. Marriage and domestic happiness are appealing, but they come second to the name earned through sacrifice. This hierarchy is repeated again and again until it becomes the poem’s main argument.
The female speaker is central to that argument. She claims tenderness and loyalty, but she refuses weakness. Her love is conditional on courage. She will not shield the man from danger, nor plead for his safety above all else. Instead, she positions herself as a judge of worth. To be loved by her, the man must be willing to fight. This turns the usual wartime image of the grieving woman on its head. Here, she is the one demanding resolve, even at the cost of her own happiness.
Religion and ancestry reinforce this pressure. God is invoked as a witness, not as a comfort. The father’s ancient sword links the present moment to inherited obligation. War becomes part of a lineage, something passed down along with values and weapons. Even death is reframed as acceptable, even preferable, if it comes with honor. A soldier’s grave is portrayed as tragic but meaningful, while survival without courage is framed as shameful.
The final lines make the poem’s stance unmistakable. The speaker would rather mourn a fallen hero than live beside a man who refused to fight. This is not subtle persuasion; it is an ultimatum. The poem does not explore doubt or inner conflict beyond a brief pause attributed to “dastards.” Hesitation is treated as moral failure, not as human uncertainty.
As war poetry, the piece functions as encouragement and social pressure at the same time. It appeals to pride, legacy, faith, and romantic desire, weaving them into a single demand for action. What it leaves out is any sense of what happens after the call is answered, beyond fame and memory. Suffering is acknowledged only in passing, quickly transformed into glory. The poem is less concerned with the realities of war than with shaping behavior before the fight begins, using love itself as a recruiting voice.