Unknown
I.
My rifle, pouch, and knife!
My steed! And then we part!
One loving kiss, dear wife,
One press of heart to heart!
Cling to me yet awhile,
But stay the sob, the tear!
Smile–only try to smile–
And I go without a fear.
II.
Our little cradled boy,
He sleeps–and in his sleep,
Smiles, with an angel joy,
Which tells thee not to weep.
I’ll kneel beside, and kiss–
He will not wake the while,
Thus dreaming of the bliss,
That bids thee, too, to smile.
III.
Think not, dear wife, I go,
With a light thought at my heart
‘Tis a pang akin to woe,
That fills me as we part;
But when the wolf was heard
To howl around our lot,
Thou know’st, dear mother-bird,
I slew him on the spot!
IV.
Aye, panther, wolf, and bear,
Have perish’d ‘neath my knife;
Why tremble, then, with fear,
When now I go, my wife?
Shall I not keep the peace,
That made our cottage dear;
And ’till these wolf-curs cease
Shall I be housing here?
V.
One loving kiss, dear wife,
One press of heart to heart;
Then for the deadliest strife,
For freedom I depart!
I were of little worth,
Were these Yankee wolves left free
To ravage ’round our hearth,
And bring one grief to thee!
VI.
God’s blessing on thee, wife,
God’s blessing on the young:
Pray for me through the strife,
And teach our infant’s tongue.
Whatever haps in fight,
I shall be true to thee–
To the home of our delight–
To my people of the free.
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
You may find this and other poems here.
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem centers on a moment just before departure, not on battle itself. The speaker is already armed, already committed, but the poem pauses to stay with the act of leaving. What matters most here is not the enemy or the cause in abstract terms, but the private space of a home, a marriage, and a child asleep in a cradle. The war enters the poem only because it threatens that space, and the speaker frames his decision to fight almost entirely through that lens.
The opening stanza establishes the emotional core. The rifle and knife are named first, but they are immediately followed by the wife. The pairing is deliberate. Weapons and marriage are treated as parallel obligations. The farewell is brief and restrained. There is affection, but also control. The speaker asks his wife to smile, not because the moment is joyful, but because fear would undermine his resolve. Courage here is presented as emotional discipline rather than bravado.
The second stanza deepens this domestic focus by shifting attention to the sleeping child. The child’s innocence becomes a stabilizing force. The speaker interprets the baby’s smile as a sign that grief should be held back. This is less about belief than reassurance. The child cannot understand the war, but his presence allows the speaker to imagine that what he is doing fits into a larger moral order. The act of kneeling and kissing the child quietly echoes religious imagery without fully leaning into it, keeping the moment grounded and human.
In the third and fourth stanzas, the poem turns toward justification. The speaker admits that leaving causes pain, but quickly reframes that pain as necessary. The repeated animal imagery is important. Wolves, panthers, and bears stand in for danger, disorder, and intrusion. By comparing the enemy to predators, the poem removes any sense of moral complexity. Fighting becomes an extension of frontier survival. The speaker has killed threats before to protect his family, and war is presented as the same action on a larger scale.
This comparison also reveals how the poem understands violence. Killing is not celebrated, but it is normalized. It is something a man does when the perimeter of home is breached. The question “Shall I be housing here?” implies that staying behind would be a failure of responsibility. Safety is not passive; it must be enforced. The poem does not entertain alternatives. Protection and aggression are tightly linked.
The language becomes more explicit in naming the enemy in the fifth stanza. The term “Yankee wolves” makes the political alignment clear and intensifies the animal metaphor. This move collapses the difference between personal threat and national conflict. The speaker is not fighting for strategy or policy, but to prevent grief from entering his home. Freedom, as used here, is local and personal. It is defined by the ability to keep one’s hearth undisturbed.
The final stanza pulls back slightly and broadens the scope again. Blessings are invoked, and prayer becomes the wife’s role while fighting remains the husband’s. This division of labor reinforces traditional gender expectations, but it also reflects how war reshapes family dynamics. The speaker promises fidelity not just to his wife, but to home and people as a whole. Loyalty is layered: marriage, household, community, and cause are all bound together.
What stands out across the poem is how little space is given to doubt. The speaker acknowledges pain but never questions the choice itself. Any hesitation is quickly resolved through analogy and duty. This gives the poem a steady emotional tone, but it also limits its complexity. The enemy is never humanized, and the cost of violence beyond the household is never addressed. That narrow focus, however, is also the poem’s strength. It captures how many individuals likely understood the war at a personal level, not as history but as threat.
As a war poem, this piece functions more as justification than reflection. It is not interested in what war does to societies over time, but in how a single man convinces himself to walk out the door. The domestic imagery grounds the poem and keeps it emotionally accessible, even as the rhetoric hardens. By anchoring the conflict in marriage and parenthood, the poem asks the reader to see war not as an abstract clash, but as a series of private departures, each one shaped by fear, obligation, and love.