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:
You forgot about the South firing on the Star of the West and the Rhoda Shannon I see. Both before they fired on Sumter.
There’s a reason it’s called the war of Northern aggression.
Let me guess. Ignorance?
>>There’s a reason it’s called the war of Northern aggression.
>Let me guess. Ignorance?
Ignorance, more like willful stupidity. The North invaded the South, the south didn’t invade the North.
>No. Great Britain betrayed the colonists.
And the North betrayed the South by refusing to protect runaway slaves in violation of the Constitution.
If the Army of the Potomac had never crossed the Potomac in 1861 then there would not have been a war. The South wasn’t eager to invade a country with 2.5x the population. Besides the whole point of secession it to end a political relationship not to turn around and occupy them.
You are grasping at straws. While there may be an anecdote to support your contention there was no orchestrated effort to “protect” (curious choice of words) runaway slaves.
But even if they did that’s a long walk from any sort of “betrayal”.
Far from "enshrining" slavery, the Constitution recognized it could be controlled or outlawed by Federal Government (see Article 1 Section 9).
jeffersondem: "If anyone took up the bayonet to overthrow slavery, they were taking up arms to overthrow the US constitution.
There is a word for that."
"Rebellion" describes the Confederacy's war on the United States, so the United States in 1861 did not "take up the bayonet to overthrow slavery," but to preserve the Union against rebellion.
At the same time, however, "Contraband of war" was acknowledged & practiced by all.
For example, Confederate armies in Union states grabbed any freed-blacks they could as "contraband" for return & sale as slaves.
By contrast, Northern armies declared as "contraband" any fugitive slaves who fled into their lines, then hired them to serve the Union cause.
That was as much as the Union could constitutionally do before passing the 13th amendment in 1865.
By early 1865 everyone North & South understood that the price for Confederates losing the war would be abolition.
The only question at the Hampton Roads conference (February 1865) was whether slave-holders would be compensated or not.
Confederates chose "not".
>If the Army of the Potomac had never crossed the Potomac in 1861 then there would not have been a war. The South wasn’t eager to invade a country with 2.5x the population. Besides the whole point of secession it to end a political relationship not to turn around and occupy them.
Exactly. Which is why it wasn’t a civil war. A Civil war involves sides trying to take over the central government. This was a war of secession exactly like the one the 13 colonies fought against Great Britan, admittedly for a less than noble cause.
I readily acknowledged in my post 47 that there could be other reasons the North fought to destroy the South.
Here's what I wrote: “Of course, if the North was fighting because it was in the North's economic and political best self-interest, then, arguably, that was a high moral cause worth killing 600,000 people.”
” . . . so the United States in 1861 did not “take up the bayonet to overthrow slavery,” but to preserve the Union against rebellion.”
That is a fair argument Brother Joe. But an opposing argument was made just recently in Post 33 by someone your equal. He wrote:
“When you pro-Confederates pretend the Civil War “was not about slavery”, by that you mean neither side fought to defend or defeat slavery, right? This song puts the lie to your claims.”
The song he referenced included the militant line: “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
Critic answers critic.
The U.S. invaded Germany in World War II. Was that the War of U.S. Aggression?
You ignored the U.S. fighting the war that the South started as one of your reasons. Why?
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.
“Nobody specifically. The end of slavery was a fortunate offshoot of the war but never the reason why the Union was fighting.”
Nobody specifically? I don’t think I have ever heard that claim, stated in that manner, in reference to Mr. Lincoln’s valorous war.
Your claim contradicts some real experts on Lincoln’s war. For example, in this thread, it was said: “When you pro-Confederates pretend the Civil War “was not about slavery”, by that you mean neither side fought to defend or defeat slavery, right? This song puts the lie to your claims.”
The song he referenced included the militant line: “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
“The U.S. invaded Germany in World War II. Was that the War of U.S. Aggression?”
She said Hitler.
Well maybe if you studied up on it a little bit.
Your claim contradicts some real experts on Lincoln’s war.
Like who?
For example, in this thread, it was said: “When you pro-Confederates pretend the Civil War “was not about slavery”, by that you mean neither side fought to defend or defeat slavery, right? This song puts the lie to your claims.”
So one song defines the Union war effort?
“Like who?”
I’m not one to name names, but if you happen by post 17 on this thread you’ll see what I mean.
Are you going to tell me this person is not a real expert?
The writer of the song intended it to be archetypal. The northern people accepted it as archetypal and adopted it as their de facto war anthem.
You could cut the ground out from under this argument by calling the song mythology. I would have to concede your point.
Why not just quote Lincoln on why the war was fought?
"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
You could cut the ground out from under this argument by calling the song mythology. I would have to concede your point.
I would say it was a song and not a statement of administration policy.
Sure, I totally "get" that you enjoy playing these word-definition games so much that the real truth of the matter is of no concern to you.
But the fact is that everyone here has been clear & consistent on the following points:
So, enjoy twisting & spinning all that as much as you wish, but the facts don't change.
Thank you. It often concerns me when I see people respond to the fools errands that this poster invites but you cleanly cut through his bullspit.
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.