Jane T. H. Cross
We hail your “stripes” and lessened “stars,”
As one may hail a neighbor;
Now forward move! no fear of jars,
With nothing but free labor;
And we will mind our slaves and farm,
And never wish you any harm,
But greet you–_over the river_.
The self-same language do we speak,
The same dear words we utter;
Then let’s not make each other weak,
Nor ‘gainst each other mutter;
But let each go his separate way,
And each will doff his hat, and say:
“I greet you–over the river!”
Our flags, almost the same, unfurl,
And nod across the border;
Ohio’s waves between them curl–
_Our stripe’s a little broader_;
May yours float out on every breeze,
And, _in our wake_, traverse all seas–
We greet you–over the river!
We part, as friends of years should part,
With pleasant words and wishes,
And no desire is in our heart
For Lincoln’s loaves and fishes;
“Farewell,” we wave you from afar,
We like you best–just where you are–
And greet you–over the river!
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
You may find this and other poems here.
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem takes a calmer tone than many war verses of the same period, but it is no less political. Instead of shouting for battle, it argues for separation as something reasonable, neighborly, and even polite. The speaker frames division not as a failure or tragedy, but as a practical solution that allows both sides to move on without constant conflict. The war, in this view, is not inevitable if boundaries are respected.
The opening image of greeting the “stripes” and “lessened stars” like a neighbor immediately lowers the temperature. The Union is not treated as a monster or a tyrant here, but as a familiar presence that has simply grown incompatible. This choice is deliberate. By avoiding demonization, the poem positions secession as mature and restrained, contrasting itself with louder, more violent rhetoric elsewhere. The emphasis on “free labor” versus slave labor is acknowledged plainly, without apology or defense, as a difference best handled through distance rather than force.
Language and culture are used to reinforce this sense of shared origin. The poem repeatedly stresses that both sides speak the same language and use the same words. This similarity is not meant to argue for unity, but for an orderly split. The idea is that because the two peoples are so alike, continued friction will only weaken both. Separation becomes a way to preserve strength rather than lose it through constant quarrel.
The repeated phrase “over the river” does much of the poem’s work. It creates a clear physical and symbolic boundary, one that is close enough for recognition but firm enough to prevent interference. Rivers suggest natural borders, not artificial ones, which helps the poem present division as something organic rather than hostile. The river also allows the speaker to imagine ongoing visibility without entanglement: flags can be seen, greetings exchanged, but lives remain separate.
The flag imagery is especially careful. By noting how similar the flags are, and even wishing the other flag success on the seas, the poem avoids outright rejection of national symbols. Instead, it recasts them as parallel identities. The line about the Southern stripe being “a little broader” is subtle but telling, implying pride without open insult. Superiority is suggested, not argued.
The closing stanza makes the poem’s political intent unmistakable. The rejection of “Lincoln’s loaves and fishes” signals a refusal of federal authority and material incentives. The biblical phrasing gives this refusal a moral tone, as if independence is a matter of principle rather than profit. The farewell is framed as friendly, but firm. The speaker insists on liking the other side best “just where you are,” a polite way of saying that proximity is the problem.
As a war poem, this piece stands out by promoting distance instead of violence. Its confidence lies in its calm. There is no fear expressed, no sense of desperation. That calmness is itself rhetorical, meant to portray secession as stable, rational, and inevitable. What the poem avoids is any acknowledgment of how fragile such a clean separation might be. The simplicity of its vision is also its limitation, but within its own terms, it succeeds at presenting division as not only acceptable, but courteous and final.