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:
Then we are agreed.
Thanks for playing.
Curious why DiogenesLamp distorts this, since the issue was not whether "traveling through a 'Free State' " emancipated slaves, but rather permanently settling in a free state, as Dred Scott was.
From Day One the distinction was made & honored between temporary and permanent residence, where slaves could be held in the former, but not the latter.
Dred Scott v. Sanford first erased this distinction and now DiogenesLamp wishes to argue it was never, in fact, there.
But it was, recognized & respected by all, including President Washington, regardless of later novel interpretations.
But Lincoln did intend to give up Fort Sumter peacefully, in exchange for a promise by Virginia not to secede.
A fort for a state, thought Lincoln, would be a good bargain.
Lincoln did not wish to give up Fort Sumter for free.
Reasonable, rational, responsible people regard the Dred Scott ruling to be among the (if not the very) worst decision ever rendered by SCOTUS.
The implications and consequences of this ruling were so far reaching and so draconian that many regard it as the spark that ignited the eventual Civil War.
I have no respect for anyone who can’t (or won’t) see this.
Fixed it.
Or, as Ronal Reagan would later say: "we win, they lose."
DiogenesLamp: " I have no doubt Toombsy thought it was a mistake, but afterwards he reconciled himself to believe Beauregard had no other choice."
Toombsy??
"Robert Augustus Toombs (July 2, 1810 – December 15, 1885) was an American politician who was a founding father of the Confederacy and its first Secretary of State."
Toombs was 100% accurate in describing the foolishness of Jefferson Davis' order to assault Fort Sumter.
Toombs' later efforts to explain & justify do not change the fact that Davis had a choice and chose unwisely:
Such logic only applies to a nation already at war, self confessed in this case.
DoodleDawg: "Socialist policies like utilizing slave labor?
Like implementing confiscatory taxes?
Like seizing a set percentage of all farm output without compensation..."
Well done.
x: "So it was all about slavery.
Thank you. "
Seems it was "all about slavery" to Southerners, until our pro-Confederates tell us it wasn't.
It's astonishing to see DiogenesLamp here attempt to use one of the stronger arguments against his position to support it.
He claims that despite President Washington's obvious respect for Pennsylvania's abolition laws, yet Washington "did in fact show contempt" for them.
Washington showed no such "contempt", but strictly obeyed the letter of Pennsylvania abolition laws.
That makes DiogenesLamp's claims on this subject bogus.
BJK post #87: "In fact, no such issue is listed in the Declaration of Independence."
jeffersondem post #173: "Did you know the word “Revolutionary” is not in the Declaration of Independence?"
Your claim in post #72 remains incorrect.
Such arguments are pure nonsense, merely a distraction from the totally valid point that emancipation & abolition became increasingly important to the Union cause, as illustrated in Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Good responses.
It’s noteworthy that the term “pecuniary” doesn’t appear in the DOL either. Demojeff’s partner in crime insists that it’s “all about money” so how could that be? LoL
According to this source, the total was fewer than 50 Confederate cannon, though seems to me I've seen other sources saying hundreds.
Anderson had 60 cannon, though only 21 available for use.
By the way, I notice from this source that Fox did send resupply boats to Fort Sumter, but they were turned back by Confederate fire.
So the intention was to send them again, in the dark on April 12.
That didn't work, only because of high seas, and by the next night Anderson had surrendered.
So the point here is: only bad weather prevented Fox from completing his mission to resupply Fort Sumter before Anderson surrendered on April 13, 1861.
Lincoln's resupply mission was far from impossible or unrealistic, simply suffered from bad weather & poor timing.
No good reason to read more into it.
The idea that individual states, or regions, can use natural law and the US constitution to prevent federal government overreach suffered a major setback because of the disaster at Appomattox.
However, the idea that progressives - individuals and states - can ignore federal law to promote unwholesomeness is very much alive. See California's successful defiance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. See California's successful defiance of federal immigration law. See California's successful defiance of federal marijuana law.
And it is not just California.
So you would have us believe.
However, the idea that progressives - individuals and states - can ignore federal law to promote unwholesomeness is very much alive.
Again, so you would have us believe.
See California's successful defiance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Not sure what you're referring to here, but DOMA was found unconstitutional in 2013.
See California's successful defiance of federal immigration law.
Not sure what you're referring to here either, but if your complaint is that California did not enforce federal immigration laws then the answer to that is easy. Federal immigration laws are federal laws. States cannot be compelled to enforce them for the federal government. The Supreme Court found that back in the 19th century in Prigg v. Pennsylvania.
See California's successful defiance of federal marijuana law.
States are not defying federal marijuana laws by legalizing pot in their state. That does not prevent the federal government from arresting anyone for pot possession. But like the immigration laws states are not required to enforce federal drug laws.
And it is not just California.
Of course not.
I earlier saw your post promising more Nazi Card playing. Since your post didn't need an immediate response, and because of the cheerful holidays, I decided to set it aside.
The best thing I can think of is to refer you to a letter written by a man named Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is a man that lived many, many years ago.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was the 34th President of the United States. Before that, Dwight D. Eisenhower was an army general, in fact the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force during WWII. This means he was kind-of an important person in the war against Germany.
General Eisenhower fought against Nazis. Real Nazis, not the invented Nazis we hear so much about today. And General Eisenhower fought Nazis during a time when fighting Nazis could cost you something.
As president, Mr. Eisenhower wrote to a Dr. Scott about his own views of the quintessential Southerner:
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
I hope that you will keep in mind the views of General and President Eisenhower the next time you have the unfortunate idea of gratuitously playing the Nazi Card.
I know who Eisenhower was. And since you're into quoting him then let's see what he had to say about Ulysses Grant, shall we?
"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. The fact is, he never demanded more men or material from the war department, he took over an army that had a long history of retreating and losing. That army had no confidence in their fighting ability and Grant came in as a real outsider. He had so many disadvantages going into the 1864 campaign, now 100 years ago. But he met every test and rose to the occasion unlike I’ve ever seen in American history. He was a very tough yet very fair man and a great soldier. He’s not been given his due...Grant devised a strategy to end the war. He alone had the determination, foresight, and wisdom to do it. It was lucky that President Lincoln didn’t interfere or attempt to control Grant’s strategic line of thinking. Lincoln wisely left the war to Grant, at least in the concluding moves after he came east. Grant is very undervalued today, which is a shame, because he was one of the greatest American generals, if not the greatest."
“Once you get past that whole rebellion thing I’m sure they (southerners) were all sterling characters.”
This must be your dog whistle to attack rebels George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Southerners they were.
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.