http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12101#comments
And this map. :)
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:
That is "domestic faction and insurrection." You can find "domestic insurrection in papers 25 and 26. In paper 25 the phrase clearly refers to Shay's Rebellion, which wasn't a slave revolt.
You can also search a large collection of books on Google Books Ngrams. "Domestic insurrection" first appears in British English in 1745 and in American English in 1774. "Treasonous insurrection" was a much less common phrase that only had a small vogue from 1806 to 1826.
"Servile insurrection makes appearances from 1796 to 1804, then has a comeback in 1814 and overtakes "domestic insurrection" in 1850, becoming far more popular in the 1860s, but it was used earlier from 1715 to 1723 (probably tied in with an earlier Jacobite rising), so it was possible, but not likely, that Jefferson could have used the phrase if he wanted to talk about slave revolts. "Slave insurrection" has a similar pattern, first appearing in American English in 1796 and becoming very common in the 1860s.
"Treasonous insurrection" contains a marked value judgement. It's a moral judgement and condemnation. I wouldn't say that it refers to something different from the broader category of "domestic insurrection." It just gives an ethical or emotional color to one's writing. It's a phrase that you'd use if you wanted to strike an emotional chord and leave out if you were making a colder, more intellectual argument.
Anyway, look up words like these on Google Books Ngram Viewer. It won't give you a definite answer, but it does indicate the relative commonness or rareness of words and phrases at different times in history.
You get 15 yards for unnecessary roughness.
Absolutely brutal.
A bunch of clap-trap, posturing and saber rattling does not equate to action. Where were the slave insurrections? Where were masters being murdered? My decree is bigger than your decree. Anyway, it’s important to clarify that Jefferson did not add, to his draft, “excited domestic insurrection”. Though I will add that jeffersondem and DL seem very excited by the prospect that he did and that it was a euphemism for “slave insurrection”. That way they can claim that the “13 Slave States” complained that “Britain was interfering with slavery”! Ha ha ha. That’s a good one. You two deserve each other.
As Shay's Rebellion was a decade after the Declaration of Independence, the earlier drafts could not possibly be referring to it as "domestic insurrection."
Jefferson must necessarily be referring to something that happened before he started his draft.
We are talking about the Federalist Papers, which appeared over a decade after the Declaration of Independence.
The question was what people in the late 18th century understood by the term "domestic insurrection."
In what circumstances would they use the phrase?
That would provide a clue as to how people understood the phrase when they read it in the Declaration.
Whatever private meanings phrases may have had in Jefferson's mind can't be recovered and probably don't matter.
Go back under your rock and ponder.
And my point is, what they understood it to mean after 1776 is irrelevant. In the context of this discussion, only what it means in 1776s argues to the point.
I leap to the conclusion that your charisma bypass surgery was successful.
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12101#comments
And this map. :)
"...all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer death..."
So, here we see one "general insurrection" and one "insurrection".
So tell us, how many times does VA mention "domestic insurrections"?
Go ahead, take your time, read VA's declaration carefully, I'll wait.
Let us know how may "domestic insurrections" you found there.
And while you're at it, why not look up how many slave revolts there really were in the months before July 4, 1776.
That could be important to defining just what "domestic insurrection" meant to those people.
I've seen similar maps before and that opinion.
But the map I think vastly more important is this one:
Red are Trump counties, blue Hillary's:
Which once again represents the distinction between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.
You are correct. Thank you for your reply.
If I have ever read Federalist Papers 25 and 26, I didn't remember the reference to domestic insurrection.
I am glad I asked for clarification from you rather than making a knee-jerk statement that was wrong and provably wrong.
When a person is wrong they have to admit it - or double-down on wrong.
When I'm wrong I prefer to recognize it as soon as possible. Fortunately for me, in this case, I was able to avoid being wrong by politely asking for more information.
Again, thank you for the information.
Not insurrection, not murder, but joining the British army.”
That may be your interpretation on behalf of Lord Dunmore, but the Virginia patriots called it differently.
They said . . . . well, let's read what they said about Dunmore’s proclamation:
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.
You contend the Virginians not only didn't know what they were talking about, but that they didn't say what they clearly said.
Next I suppose we will see you on YouTube wagging your finger and instructing Aunt Jemima on how to make pancakes.
Just that one year? The phrase "domestic insurrection" was used prior to 1776 and did not usually relate to slave revolts. And it was used after 1776, again, not usually in reference to slave revolts. And we're supposed to believe that in 1776 it was all about slavery? Not likely.
But Jefferson took out the phrase "treasonable insurrections." It doesn't appear in the final draft. No more than the long, strange passage on slavery.
It stands to reason that "domestic insurrections" replaces both those passages. Otherwise, where did his opposition to the "treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens" go?
See Stephen Lucas's article in American Rhetoric: Context and Criticism, edited by Thomas W. Benson, available on Google Books, and search for "domestic insurrections".
I'm not sure why you bring this book forward. It supports my position.
An excerpt: “The third of Jefferson's grievances was even more troublesome. For years scholars have read it as an attack on the slave trade and on George III for not using his royal power to eliminate it. In fact the real force of this grievance is in its last sentence, which indicts the king for exciting the slaves to “rise in arms” against their American masters - a reference to Governor Dunmore’s proclamation of November 7, 1775, freeing Virginia slaves who joined the king's troops.”
This has been the point I've made while some of my good friends have said otherwise.
I would have copied and pasted pages 105, 106, and 107 in their entirety but the source blocks that (or I don't know how to copy and paste, a possibility.)
For the tally book, author Benson says that Gary Wills says that the term domestic insurrection refers to both slave and loyalist insurrections.
I don't think that is right for reasons I will explain - rather I'll ask Thomas Jefferson to explain - in a separate post.
Your bringing forward this additional documentation will, hopefully, help some people see the historical record in a way that I have not been able.
As expected, you only see what you thing supports your own case. What you quoted out of context makes clear that there were different grievances in this part of the original draft.
"The real force of this grievance" refers to one of three indictments, not all three. He's not saying that it was all about slavery and slave revolts.
Look at the bottom of page 106: "The phrase 'excited domestic insurrections amongst us' was meant to include both loyalists and slaves while making the Declaration less vulnerable to attack." QED.
It goes on to say that not only did the other side attack the contradiction of supporting slavery in the name of freedom, but also the very idea that loyal subjects of the king could be domestic insurrectionists. The Tories didn't think they could be insurrectionists, but they clearly understood that Jefferson was referring to them by that label.
“Your argument is pretty bizarre. You’re saying, if I understand you, that Jefferson would have referred to Tory activities as “treasonable insurrections,” rather than “domestic insurrections.”
Let’s cut out the middle man and let you read the words Jefferson recommended to Congress in his early draft:
“He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of property.”
Now, you tell me: did Jefferson recommend the words “treasonable insurrections” or not?
And if he did recommend the term “treasonable insurrections”, was his reference to “fellow citizens” pointed at the merciless Indian savages, slaves, or loyalists?”
“As expected, you only see what you thing supports your own case.” (sic)
Perhaps you did not read my post #456 in its entirety. I state:
“For the tally book, author Benson says that Gary Wills says that the term domestic insurrection refers to both slave and loyalist insurrections. I don’t think that is right for reasons I will explain - rather I’ll ask Thomas Jefferson to explain - in a separate post.”
Authors Benson and Wills have a somewhat different view than mine on an important aspect of this discussion and I acknowledge it; but they do support my view on the larger issue I am making.
I don’t understand how acknowledging the differences supports your claim that “you only see what you thing supports your own case.(sic)”
In that one deleted case, yes, but it wasn't like he would always call Tory actions "treasonable insurrections" and not "domestic insurrections." It wasn't like he would always use the phrase "domestic insurrections" only to refer to slave revolts.
I don’t understand how acknowledging the differences supports your claim that “you only see what you thing supports your own case.(sic)”
Sic you, sic boy. You said the article I cited supports your point of view. It doesn't. The author literally said that the phrase in the declaration didn't just refer to slave rebellions but also to Tory activities, and you missed that, thinking that his article supported your own opinion. You read enough to confirm your own prejudices and then stopped. You're right that Garry Wills disagrees with your point of view, but I never thought much of his books on earlier US history (though some of his others may have value).
I have to wonder why you keep banging on and on about this one point. Some New Englanders owned slaves, but most of the farmers fighting outside Boston didn't own slaves. Nor did the Continental troops fighting around New York and later Philadelphia. I don't see any evidence that wealthy Northerners were terrified that the British were going to take their slaves away. And at this early stage of the war, Carolinians were more frightened of Tory bands, than of slave uprisings. That would change as the war went on, but the idea that there was widespread fear of British-inspired slave revolts may be more a product of modern left-wing cherry picking, than an accurate reflection of the public mood in 1776.
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.