POLITICS - Battle Hymm in school

[rock-steady]

Heritage...not Hate.

[Griff]

I'll say this; this has been a tough topic to read. 1st let me say, "I ain't got no dog in this hunt." Admittedly my sympathies lie with the South, (I like the underdog)! But, my stepfathers granddads on both maternal and paternal sides of his family were residents in TN at the time the war broke out. Neither served on either side. This info was given to me by my step-father's mother. As far as I can tell, my step father and his next oldest brother were the first of their line to serve in the US military (Navy & Marines). But, back to the CW, as was the case with most folks in the south and border states, they didn't own slaves, it wasn't THE issue for them, it was the right of self-determination. Pretty much the same issue facing us today. The power of the central government is a cause for concern. And, as always, the victors get to write the history books, therefore millions of school children are taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, so there is no shame in believing it to be so. It was a real eye-opener to read actual documents from the time that proclaim what the issues were, for they were very counter to what I'd been taught in school to believe. It is a simple and very gut-wrenching institution that is easy to hang your hat on if you want to simplify the period of the 1850s. However, it was far from a simple time, and in the adoption of the Articles of Confederation I'm sure those State Assemblies felt they were taking a step very similar to the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

The war was devastating to the South, I've seen some of the results of that devastation, in both the land, its architecture and in the hearts of its people. Most of that devastation in the hearts was in the path of Sherman's march. For he didn't really wage war against an army in that march . At most his men fought a few skirmishes with militia and "home guard". But what his troops did to the farms and plantations was frankly, criminal. The resentments he fostered in his raze to the ground policy against defenseless women and children left at home HAVE survived to this day in the family stories passed down, from mother to daughter & son, grand-daughter and grandson, among others.

The loss of the war was a severe blow to the ego of Southern pride, for many of those men were descended from troops that had fought for Andy Jackson and helped Texas win its independence. But, certainly, as I know from several of my VN veteran buddies, that loss of pride is somewhat assauged in the knowledge that we served with honor and pride. But, what was most humiliating was the follow-on war waged against the veterans of the Confederacy, thru the disarmament, loss of the right of self-rule and the abject subjegation of the entire populace thru "Reconstruction".

War was declared over the issue of "State's Rights" and the power of the Federal (Central) Government. That's a PERIOD after that sentence. Slavery was one issue among many that revolved around State's Rights. But, gentlemen, the proof of the real issue is, if the war was fought over slavery, why was it not until September 1862 that Lincoln issued the 1st Executive Order that became part one of the "Emancipation Proclamation"?

"The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power, but in practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was controversial in the North. It was not a law passed by Congress, but a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control. It first directly affected only those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side, but as the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census[1] ) were freed by July of 1865.

After the war there was concern that the proclamation, as a war measure, had not made the elimination of slavery permanent. Several former slave states had prohibited slavery; however, some slavery continued to exist until the entire institution was finally wiped out by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865."

Had the war been over slavery, that would have been done BEFORE any hostilities were opened, and by Congress, not the President thru Excecutive Order. Slavery was a hype used to support the war effort and encourage enlistment, very much as "stopping the RED Menace" was during Korea and Viet Nam. And I'm certainly not advocating that slavery wasn't an inhumane and cruel institution. For it was, and should have been abolished with the formation of the Union and fulfilled the promise of the Declaration of Independence. But, it was not. And, the reason... strictly economic and political expediency. For all States had slavery upon the formation of the Union as I remember my history, except Pennsylvania.

I have traveled in all 50 States and most of the Canadian Provinces, and one constant that I've found is the pride of folks in the region, Province or State from which they or the predecessors hail. Just as our various differences often make us seem antagonistic and hateful to each other, so to, do some Canadians; therefore I say they can understand our sometimes loud bickering. Just look at Quebec's noisome vote to remove themselves from the Canadian family. (Independence, without separation, probably not doable, but good for votes among the disenfranchised). Scratch the surface of any Southern sympathizer and you'll find a staunch American. Just, you have to get thru that layer of Southern pride first. So too, our Yankee cousins. And so also our Southwestern Americans, whether of Mexican or Indian heritage. And let us not forget those descendents of former slaves, look at the make-up of either a draft-filled or volunteer armed services.

ALL of us have one or more hot-button of one type or another. I have several. Political correctness be darned, but personal sensitivity of our brethern's feelings in matters of family pride, political leaning, or religious idealogy is a measure of maturity. For truly, our differences is what makes our nation great. If we, as individuals let our differences divide us, then our forebears great experiment in Liberty and Self-Determination has all been for naught.

I will conclude with this; the airing of such differences is very important, for it leads to understanding; and with understanding can come acceptance. And if the wounds of war can ever heal, it is thru acceptance. I suggest we all bow our heads and offer our personal own prayer for understanding, both our own, and that of our brethren.

Amen, and goodnite.

[AmBraCol]

Thanks, Griff. EXCELLENTLY stated.

[KirkD]

Excellent post, Griff.

[Ysabel Kid]

Spot on, as always Griff!

[Blaine]

Griff, I more or less agree. War sucks. Now: Change a couple words, for example, Reparations for Blacks, and the South would howl. Personally, I think reparations for Blacks and the continued grudge of the south are about the same....... I don't mind you remembering, but start throwing the "poop" up my way, and I'll bite back everytime, Sir.

[505stevec]

Well said Griff,

[Hobie]

Heritage...not Hate.

Amen.

[BruceB]

GOD BLESS THE CONFEDERATE STATES!

[Charles]

Kirk.. Just this and that is all. The Battle Hymn of the Republic has nothing, zero, zip, nada about the 2nd coming of Christ. That maybe how it is understood in Canada, but it was not intended that way nor understood that way.

The Battle Hymn of The Republic is about the Northern Army claiming to be the vengence of the Lord on the South.

Now just how can I dishonor myself, but pointing out your ignorance on the subject and pointed to the historical and theological context of this hymn? You are free to think anything you want, but you make no sense to me at all.

[KirkD]

Kirk.. Just this and that is all. The Battle Hymn of the Republic has nothing, zero, zip, nada about the 2nd coming of Christ.

In your mind, I see that is the case, but you must have a pretty unique way of re-interpreting both Scripture and English words. In your view, the rest of the English speaking world simply does not know how to understand English words and sentences and fails to see what the words 'really' talk about. When the rest of the English speaking world sees 'Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord' they are mistaken about thinking it is the coming of the Lord that is being referred to. If we can't even agree on the meaning of commonly used words in English, then I guess there is nothing I can say. Neither you, nor anyone else can know what her intention was when she penned the words of that song. Poets and songwriters since the beginning of time have written songs and poems, having been inspired, moved, or reminded by current events around them. Futhermore, she would have had no idea, at the time she penned the words, of how that song would be used by some people. I like what Rock Steady said .... 'Heritage, not hate' and I also like what Griff said about pride of ones heritage and region. There is a Judgment Day and every individual in both the Union and the Confederacy will personally stand before God to receive the justice due. You need to let go of your hatred of the men who pillaged, burned and raped (they've long gone off to their 'reward') and, instead, focus on the heritage of the South, rather than bash a hymn because it was used by the Union. It is the heritage of the South that is a worthy pursuit, untainted by hate. Preserving the heritage and history of the South is an honorable mission. Hating and hymn-bashing is not. Drop the latter and you will not dishonor the former.

[sore shoulder]

Neither you, nor anyone else can know what her intention was when she penned the words of that song. .

Well........it is called "The Battle Hymn of The Republic."

I don't know how much clearer that could be, at least to a US citizen. Our Pledge of Allegiance refers very clearly to our country as "The Republic", as does our Constitution, " I pledge Allegience to the flag of The United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands...."

Just something to consider.

[Blaine]

Let's not back away, thru PC or a tender mercy, from the facts: That song called on God to smite the South. Period. So what? every standing army, including the CSA, called upon God to bless their undertakings. War sucks....one side wins and another loses. Bad stuff happens to both sides. I'm glad the North won, and that you didn't....don't read so much into it, it's not manly or grownup to nurture a 150 year old grudge. Just hum a few old S. Foster songs and remember the Darkies whistling as they came in from the fields for evening repast, and all will be fine.....

[KirkD]

I must say that, prior to this discussion, I've always wondered about the title when we'd sing it in church here in Canada. There seemed to be a complete disconnect between the title and the words of the hymn. Is that the title Julia Howe put on it the morning she wrote it, or did it become known by that title?

The actual tune was written back in 1855 by William Steffe and had at least three different sets of lyrics prior to Howe's. Here's her account of how she got the words for her rendition as she awoke from a night's sleep at the Willard Hotel, November 18th, 1861.

"I awoke in the grey of the morn­ing, and as I lay wait­ing for dawn, the long lines of the de­sired po­em be­gan to en­twine them­selves in my mind, and I said to my­self, “I must get up and write these vers­es, lest I fall asleep and for­get them!â€

[Charles]

Kirk.. I would never think myself qualified to instruct you on Canadian history, cuture, and sentiments. You need to recognize your limitations and not offer unifromed opinions on issues and matters out of the scope of your experience and knowledge.

If that is still cryptic to you, then try this... When it comes to the history, meaning and significance of the Battle Hymn of The Republic, you are dumb as a box of rocks and stuck on stupid.

I don't know how things work in Canada, but your are very loose and casual with the word "dishonor". Here in Texas, such a loose tongue with such words could be considered the gravest of insult and be cause for extreme personal confrontration.

Have a good day... Charles

[sore shoulder]

. Of course, if I'm ever in the South in a church service, I've learned enough in this thread such that if the song leader asks if there are any favourite hymns, I'll know not to go blithely strolling into the mine field by requesting The Battle Hymn of the Republic. At least not if I want to be invited to someone's house for lunch after the service.

[KirkD]

Kirk.. When it comes to the history, meaning and significance of the Battle Hymn of The Republic, you are dumb as a box of rocks and stuck on stupid.

I don't know how things work in Canada, but your are very loose and casual with the word "dishonor". Here in Texas, such a loose tongue with such words could be considered the gravest of insult and be cause for extreme personal confrontration.

Have a good day... Charles

Charles, I have singled you out, and held your feet to the fire with regard to the attitude you have demonstrated in this thread, for one reason. It is my understanding that you are, or have been, a clergyman or minister. Therefore, you are regarded by people as being in a position of Christian leadership. As such, you need to be living by a higher standard in everything you do, and you have fallen badly short of that standard in the attitude you have continually demonstrated in this thread.

When it comes to the reproof I have given you in this thread, I can assure you that there is no loose tongue. I have meant every word I said to you. There are more than a dozen other Christian leaders who have fallen badly short of the standard they needed to set, that can testify to you that, if you were here, I would have no difficulty in looking you in the eye, face to face, and calling you on your less than Christ-like attitude in a most straight-forward and frank way. You most certainly do not honor God with the way you have carried yourself here. It is entirely unfit for a man of the cloth. If you were not a minister, I would not have even raised the issue, for I would not have had the same expectations that I had of you. You can either take this as a rebuke, swallow your pride, and get right with God, or harden your neck and offer more insults and veiled threats of what they do in Texas.

[Charles]

Kirk... I have lived for many years with folks who think that clergy should be held to standards they themselves cannot or will not meet. It is a high form of hyprocisy and misunderstanding.

I care not the least what you think of me. You Sir are not my Judge or Instructors in matters of history or faith.

Look to your own self and lay the measuring rod of Christ along side of your own life. I remember something I read somewhere about folks who find it easy to see the speck of dust in another eyes, while being unable to see the timber in their own.

[KirkD]

Kirk... Look to your own self and lay the measuring rod of Christ along side of your own life. I remember something I read somewhere about folks who find it easy to see the speck of dust in another eyes, while being unable to see the timber in their own.

You won't get any argument from me on that account, Charles. I am a sinner like anyone else. I am also a member of the clergy and as a result, I am painfully aware of the Biblical requirements laid out for clergy in 1 Timothy 3 that indicate that I must be 'above reproach' and 'of good reputation with those outside the church.' You and I are both clergymen and sinners. I am the recipient of vicious character attacks weekly, mostly from people who do not know me personally, but who are badly disillusioned by other clergymen who have failed to live up to the requirements listed in 1 Timothy 3. As a sinner just like anyone else, I also find myself having to humble myself, stand up, and apologize on a regular basis. The Proverbs have taught me that reproof and rebuke is good for the soul. I usually listen intently, thank them for being straight with me, and I then take it up with the Lord to see if anything they say about me is true. Most times it is just attacks by atheists, but sometimes there is truth too. That is why you and I ought to consider reproof, when it is offered by another person, as a blessing, even if you or I might think the other person is dumber than a box of rocks and stuck on stupid. The most powerful reproof I ever got in my life was delivered about 23 years ago by a boy of about 10 years of age who was a total stranger. He walked up and said an innocent, four word sentence to me that pierced me to the heart. I never saw him again. But his reproof still pierces me to the heart to this day whenever the Lord knows I need it. So your advice to lay the measuring rod of Christ alongside my own life is solid. I do, and I fall pathetically short. I will admit that and say it right out loud. It makes it all the harder when one brother has to reprove another.

[GANJIRO]

Tho I see it was written by an American woman, it was played at Sir Winston Churchill's funeral.

Aloha Kirk, Just in case you did not know Winston Churchill's mother Jennie Jerome was a Yankee American born in Brooklyn, New York in 1850 of a mother who was one-quarter Iroquois Indian. This may help explain his very pro-American politics, and the playing of that hymn at his funeral.
She was quite a character and strong roll model for him.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pag ... pageid=768

[Charles]

Kirk.. I accept correction and often times has profited from it. In this case your correction is not based on fact but on an emotional attatchment to a hymn that is not founded on the history and intent of the hymn.

I do not accept your correction as valid, coming not from a position of knowledge or fact, but emotion. I did nothing to dishonor Christ, myself or the faith. I only sought to provide the correct history and intend of a hymn that was clearly political in nature and to this day still provokes a painful memory in some the people of the South.

Before you attack a Christian brother in public you should make certain you have your facts in order and not just push out from a feeling about a hymn that originated from a culture and history different from yours.

You have been grossely unfair to me. I have called you stupid, but I have not sought to impinge your honor for standing in Christ.

[KirkD]

Charles, I could say more about Julia Howe, none of which would be based on emotion, but on fact, but I think you've made up your mind about her and what she was thinking early that morning when she wrote what she refers to as her 'poem'. She's not here to defend herself against what you have said, and I don't see that anything I say further about her or her poem is going to change your mind about what you think the meaning of those lines are, so I suppose I'll have to leave it at that. What I think we can agree on is that she wrote that poem in the morning of Nov. 18th, 1861, and it was published in February of the following year, and it was put to a tune written in 1855. The hymn was used by the Union and, as a result, it causes pain to this day for many in the South. Where we disagree is what Julia Howe meant when she penned those words. I take them exactly at face value, they have different connotations for you, as you believe you have the 'correct history' and knowledge of her intent, although you, too are of a different culture and time than she. Since Julia Rowe is not here today to defend herself, I think we are at an impasse. I will continue to take the words she wrote at face value and you will not.

[KirkD]

Aloha Kirk, Just in case you did not know Winston Churchill's mother Jennie Jerome was a Yankee American born in Brooklyn, New York in 1850 of a mother who was one-quarter Iroquois Indian. This may help explain his very pro-American politics, and the playing of that hymn at his funeral.
She was quite a character and strong roll model for him.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pag ... pageid=768

I did know that Lady Randolph Churchill was an American. I read Sir Winston Churchill's biography some years ago. He lived an impressive life, although his last words were the somewhat disturbing and enigmatic, "I am so sick of it". I don't know who picked that Hymn for his funeral, perhaps it was a favourite of his from his mother as you suggest. In Canada, that hymn is sung as a reminder of the bright hope that every Christian has in the return of Christ and the bringing to an end of evil. Of course, as one can see in this thread, not everyone feels that way, and some would strenuously argue against it.

[Charles]

Kirk... Julia Ward Howe did not live in a vacumn and her poltic views were and are well known. She was a social activists and a prominate Abolitionist. She was not a theologian or Christian Hymn writer. We know how that song was understood by both the North and the South at the Time of the war. This is recorded history and not subjective guess work.

[KirkD]

Kirk... Julia Ward Howe did not live in a vacumn and her poltic views were and are well known. She was a social activists and a prominate Abolitionist. She was not a theologian or Christian Hymn writer. We know how that song was understood by both the North and the South at the Time of the war. This is recorded history and not subjective guess work.

I think we all agree on how the Hymn was used. That has never been the issue in this discussion. The issue is what she meant when she wrote about the glory of the coming of the Lord. As an un-reconstructed Confederate, you believe you have the objective and unbiased and correct view that she was not really writing about the glory of the coming of the Lord when she penned those words (i.e., the words of the hymn are actually defined by how the hymn is later used). Unless Julia Howe shows up on this forum to defend herself, I think it is evident that nothing further will be accomplished by this discussion. I propose that we give the subject a rest.

[Charles]

Tis rested.

[Doc Hudson]

First of all, let me state without reservation that I am as much of an UnReconstructed Confederate as you will find in this group.

The let me say that I disagree with Brother Tom and with Charles.

Yes, "The Battly Hymn of the Republic" was written by a rabble rousing Yankee abolitionist.

And the song was promptly stolen by the Confederacy! It was quite as popular in the camps of the Army of Northern Virginia as in the Army of the Potomac's camps.

As He died to make men Holy, let us die to make men Free.

What do you think those Johnny Rebs were fighting for? They sure as hell were not fighting to keep the rich man's slaves in bondage! They were fighting for Freedom for Southerners. They offered up their lives at the Altar of Liberty.

I seriously doubt that many Confederate veterans would fully agree with you.

I thoroughly enjoyed the performance and found it to be greatly moving.

[Hobie]

Who says that man can not resurrect the dead? Yumpin yimminy guys, lets put this one to bed...