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: "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."

After the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War, and despite treaty promises, Brits maintained dozens of forts & trading posts from Vermont & New York to Ohio & Michigan.
Our Founders never considered these British forts & posts to be casus bellis, but did send their best, most patient negotiator (John Jay) to London and in 1795 Jay negotiated a treaty which peacefully removed Brits from those forts & posts in 1796, 13 years after promised.

In dealing with such forts our Founders were very wise, 1861 secessionists not so much.

[DiogenesLamp]

Our Founders never considered these British forts & posts to be casus bellis, but did send their best, most patient negotiator (John Jay) to London and in 1795 Jay negotiated a treaty which peacefully removed Brits from those forts & posts in 1796, 13 years after promised.

In dealing with such forts our Founders were very wise, 1861 secessionists not so much.

Were any of those forts, which were continuously occupied by the British, in New York, Boston or Philadelphia harbors? You know, so that they could threaten European Shipping into the Country?

I kinda think continued British Occupation of a New York (City) fort would be a deal breaker for the founders.

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

Watch it again. For the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcAzj_b0bIM

[jeffersondem]

“This just goes on and on. jeffersondem still hasn't explained why expert sources disagree with his own opinion (as he promised he would).”

Hold on. I was so busy cleaning up messes made by my good friends late last year that we never finished.

Where were we . . .

Hopefully we can now all agree that domestic insurrections was not a euphemism for merciless Indian savages.

And treasonable insurrections was not a euphemism for merciless Indian savages.

And merciless Indian savages was not a euphemism for largely urban anti-abortion rioting.

If you are in agreement with Thomas Jefferson on these points, I'm ready and able to move forward.

[x]

"Domestic insurrections" could refer to Tory activities as well as slave uprisings.

That is what the sources say, and that was what most people thought before race and slavery became all important to scholars.

You said you'd explain why you disagreed but didn't.

I'm not sure anybody cares anymore.

[jeffersondem]

“”Domestic insurrections” could refer to Tory activities as well as slave uprisings.”

But it didn’t.

Thomas Jefferson called Tory insurrections “treasonable insurrections.”

Then Congress “struck out” the reference altogether. Look it up.

As a friend, I encourage you not to start a new year tethered to your losing argument from last year. Just let it go quietly and slip out the back door.

Taking Thomas Jefferson at his word on this matter does not mean you can’t continue to defend Lincoln’s War which killed over 600,000 people and stood the Declaration of Independence on its head.

[x]

Then Congress “struck out” the reference altogether. Look it up.

They also "struck out" all references to slavery. Look it up.

As a friend, I encourage you not to start a new year tethered to your losing argument from last year. Just let it go quietly and slip out the back door.

Great. Start off the new year being as much of an obnoxious imbecile as you were in the old year. That's sure to take you far in life.

[rockrr]

This thread ran out of steam two weeks ago but some witless fool started it back up again. I think he feeeeeeeeeeeels that he is the reincarnation of John Wayne.

[jeffersondem]

“Great. Start off the new year being as much of an obnoxious imbecile as you were in the old year.”

I regret your decision to inject personal rancor into discussions of historical issues.

[jeffersondem]

“They also “struck out” all references to slavery. Look it up.”

That is not what Thomas Jefferson said.

“The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

Jefferson never states, never writes that anyone struck out the reference to the King “exciting those very people to rise in arms among us . . .”

That was because it was not struck out . . . only transmogrified to the euphemism “he has excited domestic insurrections. . .”

Read what he wrote again. For the first time.

[x]

Reread your own snarky comment I responded too and check out your earlier and later comments and you'll see that there wasn't anything particularly rancorous in my retort.

You have simply been wasting everyone's time making the same stupid claims over and over again without any real evidence and adding little needling comments to make your imbecility that much more offensive and obnoxious.

[jeffersondem]

“You have simply been wasting everyone’s time making the same stupid claims over and over again without any real evidence and adding little needling comments to make your imbecility that much more offensive and obnoxious.”

Are you still offended by my recent post?

“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.”

[rockrr]

Forget it Jake, it’s Trolltown.