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]

DiogenesLamp:"Which once again represents the distinction between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians."

But not the way you see it, just the opposite:

After ratification in 1788, Jefferson took charge of the anti-Federalists' who opposed the Constitution, becoming the anti-Administration faction and, in time, the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans.
Jeffersonians were supposedly the party of the "little guy", the yeoman farmer (then over 80% of voters), as opposed to Big City Federalists, but over time the reality became quite different, when Jeffersonians took over Washington DC after 1800 and never let go.

In time, pro-Constitution Federalists faded & collapsed in Northeastern cities (the kill-shot was their discussion of secession at the 1814 Hartford Convention) and Southern Jeffersonians became Jackson Democrats -- the alliance of Southern slave-holders (i.e., Calhoun) with Northern (i.e., van Buren) Big-City immigrant bosses.
This anti-Constitution alliance held until circa the 1960s when the descendants of slave-holders were replaced by descendants of slaves as the Southern Democrat base.

Meanwhile, the old pro-Constitution Hamiltonian Northern Federalists, driven out of cities, reformed as rural-based Whigs and, with the addition of anti-slavery ideas, became 1850s era Lincoln Republicans.

By the 20th century, progressives had taken over the old Jeffersonian Democrats, making them also the party of Wilson, Roosevelt & LBJ, of all-powerful Federal Government and, yes, war.

1840 Presidential election by county.
Brown is Whig Harrison, blue Democrat van Buren.
Note Democrats have already taken over Northern big-cities while Southern Whigs are strongest in areas that remained Unionist during the Civil War.
:

So: Jeffersonian Democrats were the anti-Constitution party of Big-city immigrants, slavery and all-powerful Federal Government.
Pro-Constitution Hamiltonian Federalists became the party of rural, small-town & suburban, smaller-government, small-business, farmers, anti-slavery, Christians & traditional Americans.
In the rush of Jeffersonian Democrats to internationalize our population and globalize our economy, the old Hamiltonian Federalists are Trump's "forgotten people", famously, in Obama's words, "bitter clingers" to guns & religion, in Hillary's words, "deplorable & irredeemable".

So, when today's Jeffersonian Democrats tell us "you're not who we are", the "you" they're talking about are Americans who still value our history and traditional heritages.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm trying to follow your "dance" to get to where you want to end up, and it just doesn't seem right in a lot of your assertions.

However, I don't consider it worth the trouble to go back and argue about where you are introducing bias to get your outcomes to steer in the direction you want.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "However, I don't consider it worth the trouble to go back and argue about where you are introducing bias to get your outcomes to steer in the direction you want."

No bias, just the historical facts.

Of course, for DiogenesLamp it never is "worth the trouble".
Naturally, you never tire of posting your own nonsense, but just can't be bothered to read & learn the truth.

Why am I not surprised?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You contend the Virginians not only didn't know what they were talking about, but that they didn't say what they clearly said. "

No, because you previously posted the Virginia declaration against Dunmore's proclamation in your #439 above, which I answered in post #449.
Since your quote here (post #453) is the same (a duplicate?), my answer remains the same, namely, that the Virginia declaration says nothing about "domestic insurrections" and therefore gives us no hint as to what the Declaration of Independence intended by that term.

You disagree?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " 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."

Did I miss your post quoting Thomas Jefferson on how "domestic insurrections" refers strictly to slave revolts, not to loyalists battling patriot authorities?

I'd say, even if in theory "domestic insurrections" might refer to slave revolts, it did not on July 4, 1776 because at the time there were none.
So it could only accurately refer to loyalists battling patriot authorities.

[jeffersondem]

“But Jefferson took out the phrase “treasonable insurrections.”

It is more likely that Congress, in their three days of discussions, took it out.

Jefferson, in his writings, referred to the changes by others as “depredations.”

In 1818 Jefferson wrote about the changes stating, “I was sitting by Dr. Franklin, who perceived that I was not insensible to these mutilations.”

Jefferson then went on the write about the humorous story Franklin told about the Hatter and his signboard.

[jeffersondem]

“It stands to reason that “domestic insurrections” replaces both those passages.”

Now I see the basis of your argument against Jefferson’s writings and the writings of the Virginia Congress: “it stands to reason.”

By that, you mean it stands to your reasoning. Nothing more.

[jeffersondem]

“Otherwise, where did his opposition to the “treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens” go?”

Out. Meaning this and other passages were struck out.

For example, the passage “these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection; and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren.”

And this: “. . . a communication of grandeur and of freedom, it seems, is below their dignity.”

You’ll want me to explain. Let Jefferson explain in his own words:

“The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give offense.”

[jeffersondem]

“In fact, there were no slave-revolts — zero, zip, nada slave revolts, at that time.”

I love it when you play George Hayes to my Marion Morrison.

Reminds me of the time you and I did the unrehearsed comedic skit where you used a couple of typewriter ribbons making the case that Pennsylvania was NOT a northern state. When I said it was a northern state there must have been a million people send me (or thought about sending me) a private email telling me I was a genius.

And remember the time you adamantly said no American had ever used the word “chivvied?” My sides still hurt.

And who can forget when you, for no discernible reason, decided to pick a fight over the term “tally book.” It must have taken only 30 seconds to get the facts but the good clean fun will last a lifetime.

Now you contend that you know more than Jefferson and the Virginia Congress about events surrounding the revolution.

You have made 2017 a rib-tickling year.

[DiogenesLamp]

I quit entertaining most of his “out-there” statements after he equated Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor. I’m still laughing/shaking my head over that one!

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I love it when you play George Hayes to my Marion Morrison."

We've noted before your affection for old Westerns.

jeffersondem: "...unrehearsed comedic skit where you used a couple of typewriter ribbons making the case that Pennsylvania was NOT a northern state.
When I said it was a northern state there must have been a million people send me (or thought about sending me) a private email telling me I was a genius."

It seems your tally-book is as distorted as everything else you post.
Pennsylvania has long been called "the keystone state":

"In the vote for independence, nine delegates to the Continental Congress were from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
It's said that the Pennsylvania delegation was split; four for independence and four against.
The deciding vote fell to John Morton.... who voted for independence.
Pennsylvania's vote for independence was noted as the keystone vote; the supporting vote for a new government...

...Though the nickname's origin is unknown, it's certain that it was in use around, or shortly after, 1800.
It's reported that Pennsylvania was toasted as "...the keystone of the federal union" at a Republican presidential victory rally for Thomas Jefferson in 1802."

Before 1860 Pennsylvania nearly always voted with Jeffersonian & Jackson Southern Democrats, and those few occasions when PA flipped (i.e. 1840 & 1848) helped elect opposition Whigs (Harrison & Taylor).
Indeed, Pennsylvania's loyalty to the South was epitomized in the 1856 election, when Southern Democrats supported Doughfaced Pennsylvania Democrat James Buchanan for president and, on election, Buchanan supported the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision effectively outlawing abolition.
All of which you could easily acknowledge, if you weren't so busy tickling your own funny-bone.

But in 1860 everything changed.

jeffersondem: "And remember the time you adamantly said no American had ever used the word “chivvied?”
My sides still hurt."
And who can forget when you, for no discernible reason, decided to pick a fight over the term “tally book.”
It must have taken only 30 seconds to get the facts but the good clean fun will last a lifetime."

And yet to this day, I've never seen those words used by any real person other than jeffersondem, and that's assuming you are.

jeffersondem: "Now you contend that you know more than Jefferson and the Virginia Congress about events surrounding the revolution.
You have made 2017 a rib-tickling year."

No, I've simply corrected your numerous errors on this subject by reference to facts of history.
For example, your erroneous claims notwithstanding, that Virginia Declaration you quoted said nothing about "domestic insurrections."
Nor did Jefferson himself ever say "domestic insurrections" meant slave revolts.

But, in matching your own good humor, I'll take your words here to mean you just enjoy pulling everyone's leg on these matters.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem to x: "By that, you mean it stands to your reasoning. Nothing more."

But at least x here is engaged in reasoning, unlike jeffersondem whose opinions seem devoid of it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I quit entertaining most of his “out-there” statements after he equated Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor.
I’m still laughing/shaking my head over that one!"

In fact, both attacks on United States military forces started the biggest wars the US ever fought.
Neither was a laughing matter, so what exactly do you find so funny?

[jeffersondem]

“But, in matching your own good humor, I'll take your words here to mean you just enjoy pulling everyone’s leg on these matters.”

I'm fixin’ to get into some travel and serious holiday cheer so let's give this a rest for a few days and come back strong in 2018.

I hope you all have a Merry Christmas with family and a safe one too. All the best from Dixie.

Clear on your final.

[DiogenesLamp]

Neither was a laughing matter, so what exactly do you find so funny?

That you insist on comparing Lightning to a Lightning bug.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "That you insist on comparing Lightning to a Lightning bug."

And yet the war resulting from Fort Sumter killed twice as many Americans as the one from Pearl Harbor.
So why is that somehow a laughing matter?

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet the war resulting from Fort Sumter killed twice as many Americans as the one from Pearl Harbor.

Making it all the more a tragedy that a despot started such a horrible war for no good reason.

Zero Union interest at stake.

[x]

But at least x here is engaged in reasoning, unlike jeffersondem whose opinions seem devoid of it.

Yeah, I know. This just goes on and on. jeffersondem still hasn't explained why expert sources disagree with his own opinion (as he promised he would). Maybe that's because it's just his opinion -- no better than anybody else's and not supported by actual facts .

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Making it all the more a tragedy that a despot started such a horrible war for no good reason."

Referring to Jefferson Davis, of course.

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[14]

[DiogenesLamp]

Referring to the man that kept a fort occupied in a state that no longer wanted to be part of his government, instead of peacefully evacuating it as his people had misled others to believe would happen.