Posted on 11/18/2017 6:36:43 AM PST by iowamark
On or around this day in 1861, Julia Ward Howe is inspired to write the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Did you know that this much-loved patriotic song has its roots in the Civil War years?
Julia was the daughter of a Wall Street broker and a poet. She was well-educated and was able to speak fluently in several languages. Like her mother, she loved to write. She also became very interested in the abolitionist and suffragette causes.
Samuel Howe was progressive in many ways, but he wasn’t too keen on expanding women’s rights. He thought Julia’s place was in the home, performing domestic duties. Interesting, since he proceeded to lose her inheritance by making bad investments.
One has to wonder if she could have managed her own inheritance a bit better?
After a while, Julia got tired of being stifled. She had never really given up writing, but now she published some of her poems anonymously. Samuel wasn’t too happy about that! The matter apparently became so contentious that the two were on the brink of divorce. Samuel especially disliked the fact that Julia’s poems so often seemed to reflect the personal conflicts within their own marriage.
In fact, people figured out that Julia had written the poems. Oops.
Events swung in Julia’s favor in 1861. Julia and Samuel had decided to attend a review of Union trips, along with their minister, James Freeman Clarke. The Union soldiers were singing a tune about the abolitionist John Brown, who had been killed before the Civil War. The lyrics included such lines as: “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, His soul is marching on!”
Clarke wasn’t too impressed. He suggested to Julia that she try to write more inspirational lyrics for the same melody. Julia proceeded to do exactly that. She later remembered that she “awoke in the gray of the morning twilight; and as I lay waiting for the dawn, the long lines of the desired poem began to twine themselves in my mind. Having thought out all the stanzas, I said to myself, ‘I must get up and write these verses down, lest I fall asleep again and forget them.’”
Perhaps you will recognize the lyrics that she wrote that morning.
“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.”
Julia’s hymn supported the Union army and challenged the Confederate cause. One historian notes that she “identifies the Army of the Potomac with the divine armies that would crush the forces of evil and inaugurate the millennium. . . .”
In February 1862, Julia’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic” was published in the Atlantic Monthly. The song was a hit and Julia’s fame spread quickly. In the years that followed, she traveled widely, lecturing and writing more than ever. She was President of a few associations, and she later became the first woman elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters.
Julia’s song began as a morale-booster for Union troops. Today, it has grown beyond that to such an extent that most people do not remember its beginnings.
Primary Sources:
And you happen to know it wasn't? The steamer Nashville left Charleston and ran into the resupply fleet. Nobody was stopping them.
The Confederacy could have attacked the US at dozens of places other than Ft. Sumter. They had no desire to do so because nobody was giving them any trouble anywhere else.
If they hadn't gotten their war at Charleston then they would have gotten it somewhere else.
How does it legally do that? If it could not prohibit slavery in it's own capitol city, how could it do so in a territory? Did not the constitution require all states to respect Article IV, section 2? How could this apply less in a territory than to a state?
It could also repeal or stop enforcing fugitive slave laws.
You have read article IV, Section 2, have you not? How can congress pass a "law" that overrides a constitutional clause? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land? What you are proposing they do sounds completely unconstitutional.
It could seat judges who would overturn Dred Scott.
Now here you might have something. And who appoints the Judges? Yes, of course, Liberal judges would overturn real and actual law with a creative "interpretation" of it that would mean the exact opposite of what the law said.
But does this not make the Judiciary a sort of never ending constitutional convention, and aren't we supposed to oppose creative or flexible interpretations of law?
Eventually, it could vote a system of voluntary compensated emancipation that might begin to unravel the slave system.
The slave system was going to unravel anyways, it was just going to take awhile. Yes, Congress could offer to buy the slaves, but considering a slave was around $1,000 dollars in 1860 currency (close to $100,000.00 in Modern equivalence) it would have been a very expensive scheme.
But saying that the government couldn't abolish slavery doesn't refute the fact that Southerners feared that Lincoln's election meant the eventual end of slavery.
I think his election signaled to them that they would always be the rump and their concerns and interests would always be dismissed.
Here's an article I picked out more or less at random from an 1860 issue: "The Issues of 1860." The article just gets crazier and crazier as you go along. When you think you've seen it all, it dives deeper into nonsense and madness. But that was how a lot of people thought at the time.
Harper's Ferry scared the sh*t out of them. When you have the potential for a massive slave rebellion aided by Liberal kooks from the North (not unlike liberal kooks of today) trying to arm and lead them, it can make you paranoid.
There was a kind of domino theory at work here. If Kansas goes, so does Missouri, so does the Indian Territory, and so eventually do Arkansas and Texas.
If the Constitution could not protect their institution in the territories, it would eventually not be able to protect it in the states either, so they weren't all that far wrong in this perception. Eventually the territories would become states, and outvote them. They would likely face the loss of their billions of dollars of investments in slavery if the trend continued.
The thought of losing virtually all your wealth would also tend to make people a little crazy.
Slavery was abolished in DC by Congress in 1862. For the rest, take it up with the Continental Congress which abolished slavery in the Northwest Territory. It was Thomas Jefferson's idea (one of his better ones). Nobody questioned it until Dred Scott, and once the old prune-faced, slave-owning judges died off, that wouldn't be a problem.
You have read article IV, Section 2, have you not? How can congress pass a "law" that overrides a constitutional clause? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land? What you are proposing they do sounds completely unconstitutional.
Congress could reduce the incentives for hunting down slaves and the punishments for hiding them. While there was an obligation to return fugitives "held to service or labour" to the state they came from Congress and the states didn't have to make that easy. And that was what secessionists feared.
Yes, of course, Liberal judges would overturn real and actual law with a creative "interpretation" of it that would mean the exact opposite of what the law said.
Taney was the liberal judge who overturned state laws with a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution that nobody accepted before him. More responsible judges could be appointed who wouldn't try to overturn decades of laws made by the free states.
But does this not make the Judiciary a sort of never ending constitutional convention, and aren't we supposed to oppose creative or flexible interpretations of law?
That's what Taney's interpretation was. Creative and flexible.
The slave system was going to unravel anyways, it was just going to take awhile.
More BS about slavery going to unravel anyway. People didn't know that at the time, and if they did, why not let it unravel? Why work so hard to keep it in place?
Yes, Congress could offer to buy the slaves, but considering a slave was around $1,000 dollars in 1860 currency (close to $100,000.00 in Modern equivalence) it would have been a very expensive scheme.
D-uh. It's about political and cultural power. You buy the slaves from the poorer slave owners and free them. This weakens the political basis for slavery and the culture of slave-owning. Just what would happen with the slaves afterwards would be difficult for Americans of the time to work out, but reducing the number of slaves and slave owners would really help to unravel slavery. And that was what slave owners were afraid of.
I think his election signaled to them that they would always be the rump and their concerns and interests would always be dismissed.
Always? Slave owners were riding high for decades. They wrote the laws. Even after Lincoln was elected, it was a matter of arguing well and using their power wisely to preserve some of their privileges. They didn't want to do that. They wanted independence and a monopoly on power in their own country.
If the Constitution could not protect their institution in the territories, it would eventually not be able to protect it in the states either, so they weren't all that far wrong in this perception. Eventually the territories would become states, and outvote them. They would likely face the loss of their billions of dollars of investments in slavery if the trend continued.
So it was all about slavery.
Thank you.
It does not mean that. Article IV Section 2 had just preceded it, and that said they could not do that. If a majority of congress was all that was necessary to override this law, it could have been done decades earlier.
As for Article IV, Section 2 slaves fleeing to non-slave states might be returned but moving with your slaves to a non-slave state would mean your slaves were emancipated.
And how do you get that interpretation out of Constitutional clause specifically requiring them to be returned back to the service of to whomever their labor is due according to the laws of one of the states?
Where is this magical "they are emancipated!" clause?
Under the Confederate constitution people could move to any state with their slaves and keep them.
Under a correct interpretation of our constitution at the time, they could do so in the US as well. They just made certain that the law was much clearer in their version. It gives liberal judges less wiggle room to pretend the law means something else when you spell it out with such specificity.
If slavery is illegal in the state then you cannot move there with your slaves. Not hard at all to understand.
Are you going to throw the Slave owner in Jail? Because you still legally can't free his slave(s). The Constitution has no provision for you to do so. It doesn't allow it. You either have to break the constitution, or any such penalty has to be something other than freeing the slave(s).
George Washington kept moving his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania. He only moved them out of the state out of respect for their time limit on how long a slave could stay there, and I think he only respected their time limit because he wanted to avoid antagonizing people, but he did in fact show contempt for the idea of a state being a "free" state.
And yet when the time came Chief Justice Chase did not dismiss the charges against Davis on the grounds that his actions were not illegal. He had to resort to a loophole using the 5th Amendment and double jeopardy.
He was on Lincoln's side. He did not want to be placed in the position of being forced to try that case on it's merits, because he had already acknowledged that it would have condemned the actions of the North.
Johnson Amnestied Davis and the rest. Maybe Chase sent him word.
A previous attempt to resupply the fort was made with only a single ship. Sending several gunboats and a large transport with riflemen aboard implies strongly that you are going to reinforce. That, and General Scott's order which said they were going to reinforce is enough to convince a reasonable man that this is indeed their intention.
Besides this, the Lincoln administration had already been stringing them along about giving up the fort, and so they just didn't trust him anymore.
It's likely that the CSA and the locals were acting on rumors rather than gathering reliable intelligence or waiting until the situation cleared up.
MONTGOMERY, April 10, 1861.General BEAUREGARD, Charleston:
If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Washington Government to supply Fort Sumter by force you will at once demand its evacuation, and if this is refused proceed, in such manner as you may determine, to reduce it. Answer.
L. P. WALKER.
They were getting intelligence from someone.
Toombsy was right when he counseled against attacking the fort -- if he in fact did -- and wrong when he tried to justify it.
But reading the document makes me wonder if he wasn't lying when he said afterwards that he objected to the attack at the time.
A man can believe both things, especially if he wants to believe both things. I have no doubt Toombsy thought it was a mistake, but afterwards he reconciled himself to believe Beauregard had no other choice.
That first ship was fired on and turned back. So of course you'd send more than one boat the next time.
What kind of ships would actually have been sent to the fort -- as opposed to waiting at sea -- and who would have been on them is a matter of conjecture since the fort was attacked before any ships got there.
And the reference to General Scott is confusing. Are you saying that Confederates had read his communique and not the orders of others in the administration? Otherwise, how does that explain the secessionists response?
The "agent" referred to was sent by Lincoln. Here's Beauregard's earlier message to Walker:
Charleston, April 8.
To L. P. Walker, Secretary of War.
An authorized messenger from President Lincoln just informed Governor Pickens and myself that provisions will be sent to Fort Sumpter[sic], peaceably, or otherwise by force.
[Signed.] G. T. BEAUREGARD.
This document which you did not site, gives a very different view of the situation from what you've said.
Understanding that we would one day break up monopolies might have eased his concerns. But today we have Globalism to worry about that he probably didn't foresee.
Ben Franklin understood the inevitable rise of corruption at the formation of the Republic. The actor Eli Wallach says Franklin's words in the film shown over and over again at the Philadelphia Liberty Bell center:
At this point I guess you are ready to change the topic to anything that is unrelated to the Battle Hymn of the Republic and Lincoln's valorous war.
The Northwest ordinance preceded the adoption of the Constitution. It is a conundrum as to why Taney would uphold it's ability to emancipate slaves in 1851, and then rebuke the same ability for a state in 1858.
Okay, I went and looked at the case. It was dismissed because of want of jurisdiction. It also points out that the North West ordinance required the return of escaped slaves.
Congress could reduce the incentives for hunting down slaves and the punishments for hiding them. While there was an obligation to return fugitives "held to service or labour" to the state they came from Congress and the states didn't have to make that easy. And that was what secessionists feared.
You mean they could just renege by making the enforcement of the law null and void. Yes they could have done so, and states did in fact start doing this with "Prigg v Pennsylvania." It's still reneging on the agreement.
Taney was the liberal judge who overturned state laws with a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution that nobody accepted before him.
It isn't a liberal interpretation. It states clearly what was the intent of the congress and the ratifying states when they created the constitution.
More responsible judges could be appointed who wouldn't try to overturn decades of laws made by the free states.
The free states were exceeding their authority. They could prohibit the creation of slaves in their own states, but they could not emancipate slaves created by the laws of other states. They had just got so used to doing what they wanted that they were outraged when someone finally told them "no."
That's what Taney's interpretation was. Creative and flexible.
In what way was it creative? The Constitution required slaves to be returned to their owners, and it specifies that such must be done in spite of any laws in any other states. What was creative was believing this was a clause that didn't mean exactly what it said.
More BS about slavery going to unravel anyway. People didn't know that at the time, and if they did, why not let it unravel? Why work so hard to keep it in place?
I dunno, maybe because they had about 5 billion dollars (In 1860 dollars) invested in it? Who wants to see most of their net worth evaporate?
D-uh. It's about political and cultural power. You buy the slaves from the poorer slave owners and free them. This weakens the political basis for slavery and the culture of slave-owning.
That is actually a good strategy. You do it enough to make it acceptable and inevitable, and it will build momentum.
Just what would happen with the slaves afterwards would be difficult for Americans of the time to work out, but reducing the number of slaves and slave owners would really help to unravel slavery.
I think it would have definitely accelerated it.
And that was what slave owners were afraid of.
I am sure they were afraid of anything that questioned the legitimacy of their wealth, the bulk of which was tied up in slaves.
Always? Slave owners were riding high for decades. They wrote the laws.
And so they were all the less interested in letting other people call the shots, especially if it cost them money and damaged their societal acceptance. Nobody wants to lose power and lose "face."
Even after Lincoln was elected, it was a matter of arguing well and using their power wisely to preserve some of their privileges.
They weren't going to wheedle people into reducing their costs, not so long as it was to the benefit of the majority to keep getting money from them.
They didn't want to do that. They wanted independence and a monopoly on power in their own country.
They definitely wanted independence, and they probably wanted to remain the elite in their own society. So?
So it was all about slavery.
How did you get that from what I said? I didn't say anything remotely like that. Slavery was an indirect factor for the war, because slaves created the export revenue from the European trade, over which they were really fighting. It was all about MONEY, and it was all about the POWER to keep getting the MONEY.
Nobody in power in the North or South gave a sh*t about the welfare of the slaves.
The chart and figure are interesting reading indeed.
I found a Wikipedia bio of Thomas Kettell, author of Southern Wealth and Northern Profits. Apparently he was a New Yorker who spoke freely:
This is factually incorrect. It was the arrival of a second ship at the rendezvous point that triggered the notification that if the fort was not evacuated immediately, General Beauregard was going to open fire with his batteries.
The Confederates waited to see if the ships were actually going to come before they started shooting.
And the reference to General Scott is confusing. Are you saying that Confederates had read his communique and not the orders of others in the administration? Otherwise, how does that explain the secessionists response?
I have little doubt that the Confederates read everything. Lieutenant David Porter told Lincoln himself that the Navy was full of Confederate spies and sympathizers and that if anything were sent through official channels, the Confederates would be informed of it as fast as a message can get down the Telegraph wires.
I have little doubt the Army was similarly filled with spies and sympathizers, and it too leaked like a sieve.
Lincoln used this fact to his advantage when he sent hand carried secret orders with David Porter handing him command of the Powhatan (which everyone expected to arrive and lead the assault) to make sure the Union ships would really never attack, all while leaving the Confederates to believe that they would.
The "agent" referred to was sent by Lincoln. Here's Beauregard's earlier message to Walker:
I don't think so. That "agent" was communicating with Governor Pickens, Not General Beauregard. The message sent by Walker says the agent was communicating with Beauregard.
"If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Washington Government...
.
.
This document which you did not site, gives a very different view of the situation from what you've said.
I didn't cite it because that agent was not communicating with Beauregard. Why should I cite it? Walker was with Governor Pickens (as noted in your message) and he was communicating with Beauregard by Telegraph. Presumably Beauregard was not in the room with Walker and Pickens, or they would have had no need to communicate by telegraph.
Presumably whatever "agent" to which Walker refers, was with Beauregard.
Dred Scott was the “Law of the Land.” It hits me real big (pointing to sensitive heart) when I hear a rebellious attitude directed toward any branch of our supreme federal government.
I don't know if this question has ever been asked: Did the anger generated by the Dred Scott decision send northern fundamentalists on the prod to chivvy the South into war in order to destroy Dred Scott by violence?
“In fact, no such issue is listed in the Declaration of Independence.”
Did you know the word “Revolutionary” is not in the Declaration of Independence?
“The Union in defending itself also advanced the cause of emancipation, abolition and full citizenship for African-Americans.”
That is an interesting comment.
Tell me more about how the slave state of Maryland attacked the slave state of Virginia.
And how the slave state of Delaware attacked the slave state of North Carolina.
And how the slave state of Kentucky attacked the slave state of Tennessee.
And how the slave state of Missouri attacked the slave state of Arkansas.
And how the slave state of West Virginia . . .
Were the slave states attacking the other slave states to protect slavery?
Or were the slave states attacking other slave states to stop the other slave states from stopping them from freeing their slaves?
“I’ve also seen it asserted that an additional 2 million Southerners subsequently died from starvation, disease, and exposure as an indirect consequence of the war.”
No known connection, but I’ve read reports that on a recent weekend over 60 men, women, and children were shot down on the streets of Chicago.
Yes, I have asked about some contradictory statements you have made. And about some wrongheaded claims. That is not word-definition games. Just holding you accountable.
Maybe it is unfair.
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it . . .”
Lincoln said so many conflicting things to so many audiences it is hard to keep track or to know when he was being honest.
When Lincoln declared “if I could save it (the union) by freeing all the slaves I would do it” he may have actually been stating his intentions . . . and his lack of commitment to the constitution and rule of law.
The constitution did not permit Lincoln to free all the slaves - unless he had the votes to pass a constitutional amendment. Some here on this board have done the math and assure me he did not have the necessary votes. And Lincoln knew he did not have the votes.
So Lincoln did what he did at a cost of over 600,000 dead. He destroyed the union to save it but we lost the constitution.
But we did get something to replace the constitution. We got the federal register which, I think, is now over two million pages.
Not sure I agree with you on that, but for the sake of argument let's say he did. Post a quote from Lincoln saying the war was all about ending slavery and you will support your point.
When Lincoln declared “if I could save it (the union) by freeing all the slaves I would do it” he may have actually been stating his intentions . . . and his lack of commitment to the constitution and rule of law.
Not likely at all because earlier in the letter Lincoln says, "I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution." Obviously if Lincoln said he would free all the slaves he meant only if he could do it under Constitutional means. Which is why he pushed through the 13th Amendment.
The constitution did not permit Lincoln to free all the slaves - unless he had the votes to pass a constitutional amendment. Some here on this board have done the math and assure me he did not have the necessary votes. And Lincoln knew he did not have the votes.
And Lincoln did not free all the slaves. Not until he had the votes to get the 13th Amendment out of Congress and to the states. Were you not aware that it was passed under Lincoln's time in office and was well on its way to ratification when he was killed?
So Lincoln did what he did at a cost of over 600,000 dead. He destroyed the union to save it but we lost the constitution.
Complete nonsense. The South launched their rebellion, Lincoln worked to suppress it. The 600,000 dead were the results of Southern acts and not Northern ones. Unless you count no completely surrendering to Southern demands the moment Sumter was bombarded.
I would disagree. You claim that the North was the aggressor because it invaded the South. But having started the war, only the South was responsible for keeping enemy forces out of their territory. So to say the North was the aggressor for invading the South when the South started the war in the first place is, to me at least, as ridiculous as saying the U.S. was the aggressor in World War II for invading Germany when Germany started the war to begin with.
Nor is it intended two. One clause refers to fugitives, which is a lot different that residents. States can outlaw slavery within their border and Congress can outlaw slavery in the territories. But if a fugitive, be they runaway slave or common criminal, is apprehended then they are returned to the state they fled from. If someone moves into the state or territory where slavery is illegal then they can't bring their slaves there. It's as simple as that.
And how do you get that interpretation out of Constitutional clause specifically requiring them to be returned back to the service of to whomever their labor is due according to the laws of one of the states?
Not hard at all. You seem to be ignoring the phrase "under the laws thereof". If slavery is legal in Kentucky and a slave flees to Indiana, where slavery is not, then that slave is returned to Kentucky if apprehended. If someone moves from Kentucky to Indiana then "under the laws thereof" in Indiana the slave is freed since slavery is illegal. Simple as that.
Under a correct interpretation of our constitution at the time, they could do so in the US as well.
Under your interpretation. That doesn't automatically make your opinion the correct interpretation.
Are you going to throw the Slave owner in Jail? Because you still legally can't free his slave(s).
Sure they could, under the laws of the state.
The Constitution has no provision for you to do so.
Actually it does under the 10th Amendment.
George Washington kept moving his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania.
Because under Pennsylvania law at the time, slave owners could temporarily reside in the commonwealth with their slaves. However, if they became permanent residents then the slaves were freed.
He was on Lincoln's side. He did not want to be placed in the position of being forced to try that case on it's merits, because he had already acknowledged that it would have condemned the actions of the North.
He was on Lincoln's side when he made the original statement. By your interpretation Chief Justice Chase should have thrown the whole matter out of court on day one. But he didn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.