The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
Noting the special respect given to the Confederate dead, a Union general decided it fitting and proper to have a "decoration day" as well. This was eventually made to apply to all conflicts (many died in battles that were not officially "wars," back from the days of struggles with Indian tribes). A few years back, 3 P.M. was set as a moment of silence and remembrance:
Memorial Day represents one day of national awareness and reverence, honoring those Americans who died while defending our Nation and its values. While we should honor these heroes every day for the profound contribution they have made to securing our Nation's freedom, we should honor them especially on Memorial Day. ... I hereby direct all executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the White House Program for the National Moment of Remembrance (Program), to promote a "National Moment of Remembrance" to occur at 3 p.m. (local time) on each Memorial Day.
And, the matter continues:
On this Day of Memory, we mourn brave citizens who laid their lives down for our freedom. They lived and died as Americans. May we always honor them. May we always embrace them. And may we always be faithful to who they were and what they fought for.
I am wary of the brunt of our military power, often used for bad ends, and thought a book on the Copperheads too dismissive of those who (if at times tilting at windmills) wanted to stop the horrors of the Civil War. I also don't think it a violation, pace, of the suggestion that we honor those dead in "[our] own way" to in some fashion try to stop the continual slaughter of their colleagues by opposing [civilian] military policy even today.* Or, somehow "politicizing" the whole thing. This is not meant to be a mark of disrespect, though some will take it as such, and much honor (it goes without saying) is deservedly given to such people on this day.
The day is ultimately for those in uniform, which is pretty inclusive, since it does not just include those who do fighting per se. Many medics (see Wounded, on the side panel) and other noncombatants served in some sort of military capacity, while being noncombatants in some fashion. This includes those against violence, but who put their lives at risk in such a capacity. To reference a t.v. show, China Beach honored nurses who served in Vietnam. The men in the Civil War could tell you the importance of the nursing corps.
Though someone who respected their service noted "today is not their day," I think today just might be deemed fully inclusive. Namely, all those who died in conflicts, who truly deserve "the profound contribution they have made to securing our Nation's freedom." What immediately brought this to mind was an article (h/t Today's Papers at Slate) on press restrictions, which underlined the risks they have taken ... more killed this time than in any other conflict:
There is already so much that American readers and viewers cannot see simply because Iraq has become too dangerous for reporters to do the routine footwork of combat journalism. The Committee to Protect Journalists puts the number of slain media workers at 143; many others have been severely wounded.
The person noted that they deserved their own day. Probably so -- the press does deserve its special day, religion honored by so many on special feast days, and assembly/petition perhaps best [officially] honored during the election season. But, no such day currently exists, and it seems we can honor the memory of those who died in armed conflict in a broad sense, including perhaps the civilian dead. At the very least, those who went out of their way to put themselves in harm's way, including those who need not to have.
This is not a brief for the press per se ... many more have done so. War is not simply for soldiers, never was. Should we not underline the fact ... remember it ... today especially?
---
* It is to be noted that even Republicans of a conservative bent are wary of said policy, but just cannot bring themselves to any real way support a measure that in some fashion actually criticizes it in an official way. They will eventually support said change when el jefe does so, daring never to actually admit the opposition (more Democrats than Republican by far, but it is bipartisan as are the enablers) were right all along. See, e.g., Talking Points Memo.
And, as is the norm, the cycle will continue in some other conflict, ad nauseam. We will honor more dead. And, those against sending them to their deaths will the ones deemed on par with criminals by some loudmouth types.