This Day in History: The origins of the Battle Hymn of the Republic

TaraRoss.com ^ | November 18, 2017 | Tara Ross

[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:

• Florence Howe Hall, The Story of the Battle Hymn of the Republic (1916) (modern reprint can be found HERE)
• John D. Wright, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Civil War Era Biographies (2013)
• John Stauffer & Benjamin Soskis, The Battle Hymn of the Republic: A Biography of the Song That Marches On (2013)
• Julia Ward Howe, Reminiscences: 1819-1899 (1899) (modern reprint can be found HERE)
• Robert R. Mathisen, The Routledge Sourcebook of Religion and the American Civil War: A History in Documents (2014)

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem post #346: "I offer, without proof, that anti-abortion violence was not what Jefferson meant by the term “domestic violence.”

BJK responding: "My entire argument is that Jefferson must be referencing events actually happening in 1776, such as loyalists "domestic violence" against local patriot governments..."

jeffersondem: "You now want to move the goal post to 'domestic violence?'"

The DOI reference is to "domestic insurrections".

jeffersondem: "Please post any sources you have that support your earlier claim that Jefferson's reference to 'domestic insurrection' in the DOI refers to loyalists or Indians."

Please post any sources you have that support your earlier claim that Jefferson's reference to "domestic insurrection" in the DOI refers to slave revolts.
Please name the slave revolts it refers to.

When you find there were no slave revolts at that time, then ask yourself: what other "domestic insurrections" did happen?
The answer is: loyalist insurrections against local patriot governments.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Why does the mention of “Domestic insurrections” mean it is limited to the months before July, 1776?
This sounds like an arbitrary time frame of your invention, not Jefferson's or the signers of the DOI."

The quote from your post #284 is: "“HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us . . .”"

That can only refer to the time period of the Revolutionary War from, say, mid-1775 to July 1776.
You disagree?

jeffersondem: "What is your purpose in trying to limit the scope of grievances to just a few months in 1776? And how is it justified?"

Since you are here to argue that "domestic insurrections" refers to slave revolts "excited" by King George, perhaps you can name some North American slave revolts the King "excited" in any year before 1776?

[jeffersondem]

“That can only refer to the time period of the Revolutionary War from, say, mid-1775 to July 1776.”

You are restating something you said previously.

When you stated it the first time I asked: “Why does the mention of “Domestic insurrections” mean it is limited to the months before July, 1776?”

I now ask the same question, again.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "When you stated it the first time I asked: “Why does the mention of “Domestic insurrections” mean it is limited to the months before July, 1776?”
I now ask the same question, again."

No, I gave you a very reasonable answer, which you ignored.
So now you will answer my previous question:

"Since you are here to argue that 'domestic insurrections' refers to slave revolts 'excited' by King George, perhaps you can name some North American slave revolts the King 'excited' in any year before 1776? "

[jeffersondem]

“So now you will answer my previous question . . .”

I believe I do owe you an answer to a previous request going back to your post #381.

You asked: “Please post any sources you have that support your earlier claim that Jefferson's reference to “domestic insurrection” in the DOI refers to slave revolts.”

See:https://theamericanscholar.org/domestic-insurrection/

Note especially the following:

“On the American side, meanwhile, the blacks’ uprising—the “domestic insurrections amongst us” that Jefferson complained of in his draft of the Declaration—sowed the widespread panic that the British hoped for, to a disproportionate extent, in fact, considering the actual number of runaways. (The very afternoon of the surrender at Yorktown, one American soldier recorded laconically that he had spent his whole day “collecting Nigars.”) Schama goes so far as to say of Southern patriots: “Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, mobilized to protect slavery.” “

You might also want to read this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html

You should also take a look at this: https://pdjeliclark.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-american-slavery-on-the-4th-of-july/

And note well the author's findings: “Who had the king of England “excited?” What “domestic” rebellion did Jefferson and the colonists so fear could erupt in their midst? It turned out that my earlier history classes had omitted something from the American Revolution, key players whose significance was enough to warrant mention and concern in the fledgling nation’s premiere document–slaves.”

[jeffersondem]

“Note, for jeffersondem’s claim to be valid, the two different phrases here (”domestic insurrections” vs. “rise in arms”) must refer to the same things.
But in fact, they do not.”

There is an obscure story, whose origins have been lost in antiquity, that could support your assertion above. I offer it for what it is worth.

The way the story is told, a dispatch rider traveled 80 miles to deliver a copy of Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation to Thomas Jefferson.

Before Jefferson could read the document, the rider blurted out: “Lord Dunmore has called for slaves to start domestic Insurrections and to fight their masters!”

Jefferson was ashen faced as he mumbled to those assembled: “This is terrible news. Domestic slave insurrections would be bad for me as a master, bad for New York and Massachusetts and other slave states, and bad for the proposed revolution.”

Then, the story goes, Jefferson read Lord Dunmore’s Proclamation in its entirety and began to laugh out loud!

“This is great news,” Jefferson exclaimed!

“Lord Dunmore has not called for slaves to participate in domestic Insurrections and fight their masters. Lord Dunmore has only called for slaves to rise in arms and fight their masters,” Jefferson continued.

“This makes all the difference in the world,” Jefferson was reported to have said.

This story could be the missing link that proves your point. If I were you, I would embrace it.

[DiogenesLamp]

It turned out that my earlier history classes had omitted something from the American Revolution, key players whose significance was enough to warrant mention and concern in the fledgling nation’s premiere document–slaves.”

Any History that makes the North East look bad, won't be taught.

[jeffersondem]

“Any History that makes the North East look bad, won’t be taught.”

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

[jeffersondem]

“Please post any sources you have that support your earlier claim that Jefferson's reference to “domestic insurrection” in the DOI refers to slave revolts.”

When you have an opportunity, take a look at this:

http://edu.lva.virginia.gov/online_classroom/shaping_the_constitution/doc/dunmores_proclamation

And note this paragraph:

“Rumors of slave insurrections had circulated in Virginia throughout 1775, and many owners of slaves feared that the British government would encourage a slave rebellion to suppress the patriot cause. Dunmore’s proclamation did not significantly enlarge his military force, but did greatly increase resentment of the British government. Although Dunmore recruited a small regiment of African Americans, many of them died of disease in the camps and on royal warships, and his offer of freedom to enslaved Virginians persuaded many influential white men who were uncertain about which side to take to oppose the king and his royal governor. In writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson euphemistically referred to Dunmore’s proclamation as exciting “domestic insurrection.” “

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem quoting: "And note well the author's findings: 'Who had the king of England 'excited?'
What 'domestic' rebellion did Jefferson and the colonists so fear could erupt in their midst?
It turned out that my earlier history classes had omitted something from the American Revolution, key players whose significance was enough to warrant mention and concern in the fledgling nation’s premiere document–slaves.” "

Thanks for you links, they confirmed my previous opinions.
So let's see if we can increase the fact-base in what has until now been a mostly fact-free zone.
Just so we're clear on these things:

1. Lord Dunmore, the British governor of Virginia, whose 1775 proclamation promised freedom for slaves joining the British army, Dunmore was himself a slave-holder who had no moral objections to slavery, only military objectives in offering them freedom.

2. The dictionary definition of "domestic insurrection" is:
   "An insurrection is an uprising against government or civil authority.
   Inasmuch as local officials are always charged with intervening to curb behavior understood to be outside the law, the broadest conception of the term would include race and ethnic revolts, such as slave revolts, lynchings..."
   But note the first definition is: "an uprising against government or civil authority".
   That describes 1775 & 1776 loyalist battles against patriot governments.
   It does not describe the actions of slaves responding to Dunmore's proclamation by joining the British army.

3. Dunmore's Proclamation does not call for "domestic insurrection" but rather:
   "I do hereby further declare all indented Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY’S Troops as soon as may be"

4. "Schama goes so far as to say of Southern patriots:
   'Theirs was a revolution, first and foremost, mobilized to protect slavery'.
   But even if this were true — and Schama’s evidence, though well chosen, is too impressionistic to be wholly convincing — it still would not imply, of course, that the British were fighting a war to destroy slavery."

5. This list of slave-revolts shows none during the Revolutionary War period.

6. This list of Revolutionary War battles shows five loyalist domestic insurrections against local patriot governments in Virginia, & Carolinas.

7. None of the quotes equating "domestic insurrections" with slave-revolts come from Jefferson himself, or others of that time.
   Instead they come from modern historians & bloggers.

8. The US 1807 Insurrection Act covers:
   "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"
   
   None of these terms describe Lord Dunmore's call for slaves to join the British army.

9. Jefferson's direct reference to Dunmore's Proclamation in the DOI's famous deleted paragraph reads:
   "...he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them..." "

The bottom line fact is that Dunmore did not call for "domestic insurrections" among slaves, but did support domestic insurrections of loyalists against patriot governments in Virginia and Carolinas, in 1775 - 1776.
And that is what Jefferson certainly refers to in the DOI.
If others read "slave revolts" into it, they are adding something that's not really there.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "There is an obscure story, whose origins have been lost in antiquity, that could support your assertion above.
I offer it for what it is worth."

Pure fantasy, worth nothing.

Dunmore offered freedom to slaves who joined the British army, period.

[jeffersondem]

“The bottom line fact is that Dunmore did not call for “domestic insurrections” among slaves, but did support domestic insurrections of loyalists against patriot governments in Virginia and Carolinas, in 1775 - 1776.
And that is what Jefferson certainly refers to in the DOI.”

If Jefferson, and the 13 slave states whose representatives signed the DOI, had wanted to put loyalists and their backers in England on the spot, they would have included a reference to “treasonable insurrections”, not "domestic insurrections."

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Any History that makes the North East look bad, won't be taught."

Here are some facts which might interest you:

1. In the census of 1790, 10% of US blacks lived in Northern states (1/3 freed), 90% in the South (5% freed).

2. The 1860 census showed roughly ten times growth, now 5% of blacks lived in the North (all freed), 95% in the South (5% freed).

Since the 1860 numbers in all categories show roughly ten-times growth, they cannot by themselves suggest Northern slaves sold South.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If Jefferson, and the 13 slave states whose representatives signed the DOI, had wanted to put loyalists and their backers in England on the spot, they would have included a reference to “treasonable insurrections”, not "domestic insurrections." "

I will take that as your informed & considered opinion.

[jeffersondem]

“If Jefferson, and the 13 slave states whose representatives signed the DOI, had wanted to put loyalists and their backers in England on the spot, they would have included a reference to “treasonable insurrections”, not “domestic insurrections.”

That is an interesting comment.

May we see your data on that?

[dfwgator]

Then there was the version we used to sing in school:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school
We have tortured all the teachers – we have broken all the rules
We raided all the offices and hung the principal
March on, third grade, march on!

Glory, glory, hallelujah
Teacher hit me with a ruler
I hid behind her door with a loaded .44
And she ain’t our teacher no more!

[rockrr]

Let us know if he gives you an answer - extra points awarded if it is intelligible!

[BroJoeK]

;-)

[jeffersondem]

“May we see your data on that?”

Sure.

Let's review the question: “If Jefferson, and the 13 slave states whose representatives signed the DOI, had wanted to put loyalists and their backers in England on the spot, they would have included a reference to “treasonable insurrections”, not “domestic insurrections.”

In answer, look at the original draft of the DOI. It includes this grievance: “He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”

This reference to “treasonable insurrections” referred to the actions of the loyalists and is sometimes confused by first-time readers of the DOI with the term “domestic insurrections," a euphemism for slave insurrections.

The entire passage relating to the treasonable insurrections of loyalists was stricken from the DOI. Somewhere in his writings Thomas Jefferson explains why Congress did not want to deliberately offend the English people (as opposed to the King.)

[jeffersondem]

“Let us know if he gives you an answer - extra points awarded if it is intelligible!”

Sure.

Let's review the question: “If Jefferson, and the 13 slave states whose representatives signed the DOI, had wanted to put loyalists and their backers in England on the spot, they would have included a reference to “treasonable insurrections,” not “domestic insurrections."

In answer, look at the original draft of the DOI. It includes this grievance: “He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”

This reference to “treasonable insurrections” referred to the actions of the loyalists and is sometimes confused by first-time readers of the DOI with the term “domestic insurrections,” a euphemism for slave insurrections.

The entire passage relating to the treasonable insurrections of loyalists was stricken from the DOI. Somewhere in his writings Thomas Jefferson explains why Congress did not want to deliberately offend the English people (as opposed to the King.)