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:
Aah but idiotic analogies aren’t the only arrows in demojeff’s quiver - he also has half-witticisms and gross distortions. Just ask him.
On a thread several months ago one of the lost causers was straining to present some sort of tu quoque and stumbled over the established practice of using some slave labor in the building (or in this case rebuilding) the capitol building. by established I mean the practice had been going on since before the commissioning of Washington DC - certainly far before the Lincoln administration.
With larger and more pressing matters on his plate I doubt that Lincoln was even aware of their presence.
I find it laughable that lost cause losers critically point to a condition that was insisted upon by their side os some sort of failing of those on the right side.
Another nothing-burger.
There is something in federal law pertaining to pot - it prohibits pot smoking for recreational use. And it prohibits most people from growing, possessing, and selling pot.
But California decided to defy federal law with its “legalization” of recreational pot.
How can that be? Simple. California did it knowing progressive Obama and his crew would not challenge the defiance. Obama was a drug user himself - in the past . . . wink, wink.
Will California continue to get away with defying federal law? I don't know for sure. Attorney General Sessions has made some noises but Trump has so many battles right now he may not want to wade into that fight with California, several other rebel states, and the Hollywood/fake news cartel.
As I have said before, progressives will ignore plain federal or state law when it is in their interest and usually they pay no penalty.
But they will stick a bayonet into a baker quicker than they will put a nickel in the jukebox if the homosexual cupcake production quota is not met.
“Don’t have any, huh?”
You are wrong. Again.
See: Records of the Board of Commissioners for the Emancipation of Slaves in the District of Columbia, 1862–1863 (National Archives Microfilm Publication M520, roll 6); Petition Nos. 29 and 741; Records of the Accounting Officers of the Department of the Treasury, Record Group (RG) 217; National Archives and Records Administration.
“A block of wood is a poor substitute for a brain.”
I don’t know first hand but I’m not going to refute your self-assessment.
The Pee Wee Herman defense. How appropriate.
I don't believe that and for good reason.
I don't believe it because it is not true.
Read the paragraph again, for the first time.
“HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.”
You claim to believe the term “domestic Insurrections” is a reference to merciless Indian Savages but the writers and approvers of the DOI actually used a different term for merciless Indian Savages which I will now reveal: "merciless Indian Savages."
The term “domestic Insurrections” was a euphemism for something else: something a majority of the 13 slaves states did not want to state bluntly.
Later the slave states, to avoid being blunt, would enshrine other euphemisms in the US constitution. Euphemisms like “three fifths of all other Persons.” And “Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper. . .” And “ No person held to Service or Labour . . .”
Tell me, what do you think these euphemisms reference?
But nothing in the Constitution, which means your analogy was ridiculous.
And correct me if I'm wrong but states are not preventing the federal authorities from enforcing federal law?
But California decided to defy federal law with its “legalization” of recreational pot.
It is not California's job to enforce federal law; that's the job of the U.S. government. All California, and other states, has done is to repeal similar state laws outlawing pot. It's within their power to do so.
As I have said before, progressives will ignore plain federal or state law when it is in their interest and usually they pay no penalty.
Yes you have said so, time and again. Still doesn't make it factual.
I have said: “But California decided to defy federal law with its “legalization” of recreational pot.”
But you disagree with me don’t you?
You will probably be surprised that others - including those that promote illegal drug use - agree with me.
https://dankcity.com/california-assembly-defies-federal-laws-protect-marijuana-user/
You keep saying that they are defying federal law. How? Are they refusing to enforce federal law? It's not their job to. Are they preventing the federal government from enforcing federal law? No. All California is saying that possessing pot is not a state crime.
Title 18 Part I Ch. 67 Sec. 1384 of the U.S. code says that whoever engages in prostitution within a reasonable distance of a military base is violating federal law. Prostitution is legal in Churchill County, Nevada. The county seat is the city of Fallon, and right outside Fallon is the Fallon Naval Air Station. So is Nevada defying federal laws be legalizing prostitution?
“The Pee Wee Herman defense.”
Some people on this board quote George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, and Dwight Eisenhower.
Others study and are very knowledgeable about the fictional Mr. Herman.
It is what it is.
I kind-of understand your desire to pick a fight with me. But I would have thought you would have selected a topic that was not so easily researched.
https://www.massroots.com/news/california-lawmakers-defy-federal-drug-war/
I kind-of understand your desire to pick a fight with me.
It's no fight. Trust me on that one.
Read what I wrote again, for the first time: “You will probably be surprised that others - including those that promote illegal drug use - agree with me.”
But, there are other citations:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-marijuana-colorado-green-rush/
https://constitution.com/california-speaker-vows-defy-immigration-laws/
Oops, the last one is not about illegal drugs but it does acknowledge the defiance of federal law by progressives that you claim does not exist.
“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?”
John Adams was not a Southerner. I have not referenced Adams in this thread and I’m not sure why you have.
Unless it was to distract by expansion from your earlier blunder implying Washington and Jefferson are disqualified because they were southerners involved in, as you say, “that whole rebellion thing.”
Because he, along with Washington and Lee and others, was one of the leaders of the American Revolution and a founding father of this country?
Unless it was to distract by expansion from your earlier blunder implying Washington and Jefferson are disqualified because they were southerners involved in, as you say, “that whole rebellion thing.”
How you manage to come to such idiotic conclusions is a constant source of amazement to me.
Here's that description of Beauregard's 46 cannon:
"Beauregard, a trained military engineer, built-up overwhelming strength to challenge Fort Sumter. Outside of Moultrie were The floating battery next to Fort Moultrie had Fort Johnson on James Island had At Cummings Point on Morris Island, the Confederates had emplaced
Fort Moultrie had
About 6,000 men were available to man the artillery and to assault the fort, if necessary, including the local militia, young boys and older men."[31]
By my count, that's 46 total Confederate cannon.
But the key is that Lincoln's commander, Gustavus Fox, believed he could land resupplies at Fort Sumter under cover of darkness and tried the night of April 12.
Weather was not calm enough, so they intended to wait for the next night, the 13th.
Four shots per hour in the dark would not make it impossible for Fox's resupply boats to reach Fort Sumter.
But by the next night, Major Anderson had already surrendered, Fox's mission failed.
So yet again jeffersondem claims that Civil War was "all about slavery".
Why do I think he won't maintain this position for long?
Presumably jeffersondem here refers to work being performed when Lincoln took office in March 1861.
But the important fact is that in April 1862 Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act.
Sorry, we've covered this ground before.
In fact, there were no slave-revolts -- zero, zip, nada slave revolts, at that time.
But there were a good many "domestic Insurrections" excited by the Brits -- American loyalists insurrections against patriots.
So that line in the Declaration of Independence does not refer to slavery.
Nor does any other, making your claims here bogus.
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.