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)

[HandyDandy]

Gentlemen, while we debate whether or not the phrase “domestic insurrection” is a euphemism for “Slave insurrection”, I think that we can all agree that the stricken passage of T. Jefferson’s was most certainly about slavery. It is readily apparent that in that particular grievance he certainly was unequivocal in his referencing of black slaves. We therefore all agree that Jefferson was ready, willing and able to reference slaves without resorting to euphemisms. Now we must as well admit that the part of grievance #27 that reads, “he has excited domestic insurrection.......” was not a part of Jefferson’s draft, but was added. Was it added by the same person who wrote the first drafts (Jefferson)? We know that the stricken grievance of Jefferson’s was stricken by others. Did these same others add the “domestics” to the merciless savages grievance? Or did they condense the stricken grievance and splice it in along with the merciless savages? Not one of us knows who authored, “excited domestic insurrection” or what is meant by it.

[jeffersondem]

“Gentlemen, while we debate whether or not the phrase “domestic insurrection” is a euphemism for “Slave insurrection”, I think that we can all agree that the stricken passage of T. Jefferson’s was most certainly about slavery.”

Let me agree and build on what you have said.

When Jefferson combined the references “very people”, “rise in arms”, and “murder(ing)” into a single sentence he was speaking about slaves taking up arms and murdering their masters.

Many slave owners - Jefferson was one - may have, at the time, considered slaves taking arms to murder their masters as slave revolts, or slave rebellions, or slave insurrections.

Whether Jefferson, or someone, later restyled slave revolts/rebellions/insurrections into “domestic insurrections” is being debated here. I would like to continue to study that question and discuss it further.

[HandyDandy]

~~ Many slave owners - Jefferson was one - may have, at the time, considered slaves taking arms to murder their masters as slave revolts, or slave rebellions, or slave insurrection ~~

If, as you say, Jefferson ”may have” considered those three alternative phrases (which you seem to be force feeding us), he certainly did not use them. And that makes the leap from condensing “very people”, “rise in arms” and “murder” to “domestic insurrection” even more of stretch. You are fabricating stepping stones. By the way, Jefferson was chagrined when he learned his Slavery grievance was stricken. Don’t forget that we don’t know who penned the phrase “domestic insurrection” or what it means. Good luck in you research and please keep us posted.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "To me, Jefferson is writing here about slaves rising in arms and murdering their masters.
Can you and I agree on that much? "

Sure, in the deleted paragraph, Jefferson is talking about British imposed slavery.
But Dunmore's proclamation did not call for "murdering their masters" and that may help explain the paragraph's deletion.

Just so we're clear, here again is what Dunmore did call for:

"...declare all indentured Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining His MAJESTY'S Troops as foon as may be..."

Not insurrection, not murder, but joining the British army.

[jeffersondem]

“But Dunmore’s proclamation did not call for “murdering their masters . . . Not insurrection, not murder, but joining the British army.”

Sure, Lord Dunmore talked about this - and everything the British did - in favorable terms.

Did you expect him to issue a proclamation advertising that the Christian King had authorized him to become the paymaster for murderers?

In Dunmore’s telling the only thing he ever wanted to do was to give the erstwhile guest workers a wholesome job with a living wage.

On the other hand, we can expect Jefferson to attach an adverse interpretation to everything the King did. See: Declaration of Independence.

One could argue Jefferson put some extra jam on the biscuit when wrong-footing the King in order to ensure wealthy, influential slave owners who were on the fence came down on the side of the revolution.

Whether Jefferson understated or overstated how many slaves murdered how many slave owners, he did say the King was responsible for it happening.

[jeffersondem]

“Don’t forget that we don’t know who penned the phrase “domestic insurrection” or what it means.”

Historians and students of history of all political stripes largely agree on what it means.

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

http://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history-primary-documents

http://colonialhall.com/histdocs/declaration/declarationanalysis27.php

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html

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

https://pdjeliclark.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/he-has-excited-domestic-insurrections-amongst-us-american-slavery-on-the-4th-of-july/

[rockrr]

It’s nice that you’ve managed to find someone to be wrong with you.

[jeffersondem]

“Don’t forget that we don’t know who penned the phrase “domestic insurrection” or what it means.”

We may not know who penned the phrase “domestic insurrection” but we do know who authorized its inclusion in the DOI: the representatives of the slave states. All thirteen of the slave states.

[x]

The answer to the question you didn't answer, "What happened in Britain in 1745?" was the Jacobite Rising for Bonnie Prince Charlie (mostly in Scotland, but certainly a concern for the British government). That, according to Google books ngrams is where "domestic insurrection" became a commonly used phrase. The '45 would still have been on many people's minds twenty years later, and no slaves involved in that uprising (though maybe the Scots would disagree).

I clicked on several of the sites you cited and got this about Lord Dunmore: "He issued his proclamation, and authoritatively summoned to his standard all capable of bearing arms ..." I suspect that thing about calling on people to take up arms for king and country or else be labeled traitors may have constituted "exciting domestic insurrections."

Sure, his lordship did also "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, foe the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to His MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity," and told subjects not to pay taxes to the rebel government. Nowadays we focus on that part about slaves, but that may or may not have been on everybody's mind at the time.

I still don't get why you keep going on about this, though.

[HandyDandy]

~~~ We may not know who penned the phrase “domestic insurrection” but we do know who authorized its inclusion in the DOI: the representatives of the slave states. All thirteen of the slave states.~~~

At least you have now acknowledged that your claim that Jefferson used “domestic insurrection” as a euphemism for “slave insurrection” was incorrect. As for the rest of your baited statement, all I can say is you need fresh bait. Their is a time to fish and a time to cut bait.

[jeffersondem]

“I suspect that thing about calling on people to take up arms for king and country or else be labeled traitors may have constituted “exciting domestic insurrections.”

Jefferson called it something else.

Jefferson wrote in the draft DOI: “He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of property.” This was the reference to loyalists insurrections.

This and several other passages were dropped in the approved DOI for reasons Jefferson explained in his writings.

[jeffersondem]

“As for the rest of your baited statement, all I can say is you need fresh bait. Their is a time to fish and a time to cut bait.” (sic)

I don’t even know what you are talking about.

[jeffersondem]

“You can find the phrase “domestic insurrections” in the Federalist Papers, and it’s not used in connection with slave uprising.”

I think I see what you are referencing in Federalist Paper #9 and #10 but I’m not sure.

Are #9 and #10 what you are referencing, or is there something else?

[BroJoeK]

x: "I still don't get why you keep going on about this, though. "

It's because, like all pro-Confederates, jeffersondem asserts that Jefferson Davis was just George Washington reincarnated in drag.
Both were slaveholders who fought wars for the freedom to protect slavery.
So whenever it's pointed out that our Founders did not revolt to protect slavery, jeffersondem trots out the Thomas Jefferson quotes and says, in effect: "see here, it WAS all about slavery."

jeffersondem's problem, of course, is that the Declaration of Independence never mentions slavery, indeed such mentions were expressly deleted from it.
So our pro-Confederates are reduced to claiming that "domestic insurrections" are **really** CODE for "slave revolts".
If they are, then the Revolutionary War was also a war over slavery and therefore Jefferson Davis was another George Washington, albeit in drag.

Where things stand now is jeffersondem claims only "treasonous insurrections" can refer to loyalists fighting patriots, while "domestic insurrections" MUST refer to slave revolts.
The truth is "domestic insurrections" **might** occasionally refer to slave revolts, but normally did not, and since there were no slave revolts at the time, that would not be the D.O.I.'s intended meaning.

But it's an important point for pro-Confederates, so they won't give up on it.
After all, without slave revolts in the Declaration of Independence, then Jefferson Davis was just another gender-confused guy in a dress, not the second coming of George Washington.

[jeffersondem]

“I still don't get why you keep going on about this, though.”

IIR, my statement in post 72 rubbed some fur the wrong way: “It is worth remembering that one of the causes for independence that the slave states cited in the Declaration of Independence was that Britain was interfering with slavery in the colonies. Let's not pull any punches. The slave states were: New York. New Jersey. New Hampshire. Connecticut. Pennsylvania. Massachusetts. Rhode Island. Delaware. Maryland. Also Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.”

The full listing of the slave states in my post set off a couple of bitter posts like #434 which contains a Gloria Allred-level allegation against President Davis.

To your question: Thomas Jefferson recommended to Congress the DOI include grievances that the King had imposed the slave trade and that “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 upon whom he also obtruded them; . . .”

Historians generally agree that the reference to the slave trade was stricken and that the sentence referencing “those very people”, “rise in arms”, and “murdering” was changed to the euphemism “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .” I have cited numerous sources to support this position.

To be fair, some here say domestic insurrections is a euphemism referring to Indians but that does not make sense because the grievance with Indians was referenced elsewhere (”merciless Indian Savages”).

Others contend domestic insurrections is a euphemism for loyalists insurrections but that does not make sense because the grievance with loyalists insurrections were considered elsewhere in the DOI.

There may also be an argument that the 13 slave states did not object to the King exciting slaves to take up arms to murder their masters.

The last argument does not make sense at any level.

[jeffersondem]

“If, as you say, Jefferson ”may have” considered those three alternative phrases (which you seem to be force feeding us), he certainly did not use them.”

The use of “may have” in the context of “slaves taking arms to murder their masters” was simply a test of my own capacity for understatement.

Sorry for the confusion.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Historians generally agree that the reference to the slave trade was stricken and that the sentence referencing 'those very people', 'rise in arms', and 'murdering' was changed to the euphemism 'He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .'
I have cited numerous sources to support this position."

No, you posted six links, five of which repeated your claim, but none of which substantiated, by reference to actual Founders' words, that "domestic insurrections" referred to slave revolts.
So we must conclude that is a modern opinion only, perhaps shared by many, but not substantiated by anyone at the time.

jeffersondem: "The full listing of the slave states in my post set off a couple of bitter posts like #434 which contains a Gloria Allred-level allegation against President Davis."

We should notice that jeffersondem has never complained about mockery towards alleged "gay Lincoln" but now suddenly objects to Mrs. Jefferson Davis cartoons:

jeffersondem: "Others contend domestic insurrections is a euphemism for loyalists insurrections but that does not make sense because the grievance with loyalists insurrections were considered elsewhere in the DOI."

Wrong, because there are no other references to loyalist insurrections in the Declaration of Independence.
"Domestic insurrections" is the only reference to what were, at the time the cause of five battles in three states, something which never happened regarding slave revolts.

jeffersondem: "It is worth remembering that one of the causes for independence that the slave states cited in the Declaration of Independence was that Britain was interfering with slavery in the colonies."

It was not a cause, explicit or implicit, expressed by Founders themselves.
If you doubt that, then ask yourself this: suppose Lord Dunmore never issued his proclamation inviting servants & slaves to join the British army.
Would any word in the Declaration of Independence have changed?

[BroJoeK]

Here is that listing of Revolutionary War battles.

Note that from November 1776 through February 1776, five of the six battles listed were against loyalists.
Loyalists were a far more imminent threat than non-existent slave revolts.

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

Comes now the Virginia Congress with the contemporaneous findings of slave insurrections that some claim do not exist.

Text of Virginia Congress Declaration

Virginia, Dec. 14, 1775.

By the Representatives of the People of the Colony and Dominion of VIRGINIA, assembled in GENERAL CONVENTION

A DECLARATION

WHEREAS lord Dunmore, by his proclamation, dated on board the ship William, off Norfolk, the 7th day of November 1775, hath offered freedom to such able-bodied slaves as are willing to join him, and take up arms, against the good people of this colony, giving thereby encouragement to a general insurrection, which may induce a necessity of inflicting the severest punishments upon those unhappy people, already deluded by his base and insidious arts; and whereas, by an act of the General Assembly now in force in this colony, it is enacted, that all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer death, and be excluded all benefit of clergy : We think it proper to declare, that all slaves who have been, or shall be seduced, by his lordship's proclamation, or other arts, to desert their masters’ service, and take up arms against the inhabitants of this colony, shall be liable to such punishment as shall hereafter be directed by the General Convention. And to that end all such, who have taken this unlawful and wicked step, may return in safety to their duty, and escape the punishment due to their crimes, we hereby promise pardon to them, they surrendering themselves to Col. William Woodford, or any other commander of our troops, and not appearing in arms after the publication hereof. And we do farther earnestly recommend it to all humane and benevolent persons in this colony to explain and make known this our offer of mercy to those unfortunate people.

EDMUND PENDLETON, president.

[DiogenesLamp]

Virginia, Dec. 14, 1775.

By the Representatives of the People of the Colony and Dominion of VIRGINIA, assembled in GENERAL CONVENTION

This all happened in Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was only a member of the House of Burgesses at the time. He probably didn't hear anything of it.