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:
The Dred Scott decision was 7-2. The court majority wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Unless Lincoln planned to have them arrested. I guess that was a real possibility.
To change the equilibrium of the country, what Lincoln needed was a war.
But first, he needed the pretext for a war.
“Socialist policies like utilizing slave labor?”
I knew the topic of Lincoln using slave labor to help build the US Capitol would come up sooner or later but I didn’t realize you would be the one to bring it up.
Before you ask, yes, I denounce Lincoln’s use of slave labor in the strongest possible terms.
First rule of being a proponent of Lincoln's war: never bring up habeas corpus in a discuss of Lincoln's war.
“In fact, no such issue is listed in the Declaration of Independence. Just the opposite: Jefferson’s famous deleted paragraph complained first that Brits had forced slavery on all American colonies and now intended to use slaves against the patriots.”
See: “HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us . . .”
Read it again. For the first time.
“I think Ulysses S. Grant is vastly underrated as a man and as a general. I know people think this and that about his drinking habits, which I think have been exaggerated way out of line. . . “
I don’t disagree with much of what General Eisenhower wrote.
The DOl was referring to indians here, not slaves.
“States are not defying federal marijuana laws by legalizing pot in their state.”
Federal law prohibits the recreational use of marijuana. California state law purports to make it legal.
California has set up state agencies to regulate the production and sale of marijuana. They license people, under the color of law, to do things that violates federal law. California even taxes marijuana to bulk up state coffers.
And you write that California is not defying federal law.
Your view is not credible.
First some background. At the time the DOI was written, the slave states were: New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland.
Also, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were slave states.
The reason people in these states owned slaves was because they considered it in their economic and political best self-interest to do so.
After the break from Britain, the slave states enshrined slavery - I meant to say included slavery - in the US constitution. And for the same reason: they considered it in their economic and political best self-interest to do so.
Now about the DOI: “HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose know Rule of Warfare . . .”
This paragraph identifies two causes for independence: “He has excited domestic Insurrections . . .” AND (emphasis added) “has endeavoured . . . merciless Indian Savages . . .”
Two causes. Read it again. For the first time.
The DOl was referring to indians here, not slaves
And it's your dog whistle to compare the Founding Father's with the Confederate rebels. Do you honestly think the motivation for Washington and Jefferson and Adams were in any way comparable to the motivations of Davis and Stephens and Lee? Really?
One man wrote the decision and expanded it far beyond the original matter before the court. Challenging those comments of Taney's decision that were made in dicta would be a given for the Lincoln administration. Who knows how the court would have gone depending on the case?
Unless Lincoln planned to have them arrested. I guess that was a real possibility.
Not a possibility at all. But I forget that you sign on to that whole "Lincoln was going to have Taney arrested" myth.
To change the equilibrium of the country, what Lincoln needed was a war.
Even if that's true, when it came to starting a war Davis beat him to it.
Did Lincoln use slave labor for that? Source?
Before you ask, yes, I denounce Lincoln’s use of slave labor in the strongest possible terms.
But not the use of slave labor by men like Jefferson Davis, Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, et.al.?
Why not?
Federal law is enforced by the federal government, not state governments. If the DEA want's to arrest someone for smoking a joint then they have the authority to do so and California cannot interfere with them.
I guess still water really does run shallow.
That is an interesting comment.
I don't like analogies, but I'll make an exception in this case.
Suppose one of the former slaves states - Massachusetts, for example - decided today to enshrine slavery into their state constitution. And they set up state agencies to license slave sellers and collect a tax on slaves that were sold. And slaves are actually bought and sold.
(And like California does with marijuana, Massachusetts adopts safeguards to ensure the practice of slavery is not abused.)
Comes now sister DD and says Massachusetts is not defying federal laws against slavery.
“Did Lincoln use slave labor for that? Source?”
If you will stipulate that upon my providing the source you will turn to the gray side, then I’ll take the time to document.
But also a true one.
I don't like analogies, but I'll make an exception in this case.
It would be nice if you did not resort to idiotic analogies but so be it.
Massachusetts cannot enshrine slavery in her constitution because the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents it. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution pertaining to pot.
Don't have any, huh?
A block of wood is a poor substitute for a brain.
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.