Battle Hymn of the Republic

Some people need to be ticked off.

Perhaps God did use the Union Army to accomplish His purposes. After all, the slaves were freed.

Stephen,

Wikipedia has certainly sanitized Julia Howe’s biography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Ward_Howe

But the “About.com” web site seems more balanced (it references the Secret Six who were convinced by John Brown to bankroll his efforts which ended at Harper’s Ferry):

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/howejuliaward/a/about_julia_ward_howe.htm (lot’s of sublinks here)

Interestingly enough, she had a hand in founding Mother’s Day:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/howejuliaward/a/julia_ward_howe_4_mothers_day.htm

Like most people, she wasn’t all good and she wasn’t all bad, but her badness could be very bad indeed.

I’ve always liked but now have mixed feelings about the Battle Hymn of the Republic, having read the information at the web site that you provided.

🙁

I have always loved the Battle Hymn of the Republic – as it speaks so aptly to the True Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that, he defends the oppressed and sets those in bondage Free. As should we, who dare call ourselves Christians. We are never more Christ-like than we are defending the vulnerable and innocent defenseless — it is then that the Light of Christ shines eternally in all of us.
Thank you, Mr. McClarey, for reminding us of the Passion that burns within the heart of Our Savior for each of us and His desire to set us Free from the slavery of our sins.
I am ever thankful for those who Serve, laying down their own lives and creature comforts so that we may remain a Free nation. May we never forget their sacrifice.

Pope Benedict will shortly celebrate the 60th anniversary of his ordination.

We should remember him in our prayers.

What Paul above wrote seems pretty close to whatever Copperheads and Dems believed, i.e., abolitionists were mainly plutocratic capitalists/industrialists that would employ freed men to increase the labor supply, would work for less, and cut everbody’s wages.

Hey, 150 years later and Dems still hate, and lie about, rich people!

Donald,
I wasn’t speaking of the “church in this country”, as you put it, as if the Church was a different and separate institution from the rest of the Universal church, nor some instant migration of blacks to the north as a result of unprepared/forced emancipation, as if the freed slave had the means for such a migration to begin with. I think you missed the point completely. The south didn’t “miss the boat on industrialization” either. It wasn’t part of the culture of the south and they really weren’t interested in it to begin with, so they didn’t “miss” anything and were very prosperous and satisfied with ‘the boat’ they had chosen. The “church in this country” wasn’t particularly strong at this time in history, (our oldest dioceses is now barely 150 years old!) so they didn’t have much ability to voice the Church’s official position. We were a Protestant nation almost completely at the time of the Civil War. I’m not defending either north or south, as you seem to think I am defending the south. The point is that we are taught a very biased and distorted version of history propagated by the victors, and as is usual the victors have made it all in their favor; putting them in a glorious light while showing their adversaries as totally unjustified in their position. You claiming that “virtually none of what I wrote is historically accurate” doesn’t make your case nor change the reality of the facts. What I wrote is true, whether it fits your version/comprehension of historical events or not. Your concept of history has been shaped by that same version propagated by the victors I spoke of above.
Simply because a few catholic clerics owned slaves, something I have to take your word for, isn’t proof of the church’s official position on the matter anymore than a few priests supporting the ordaining of women is a proof of the Church’s official position on the ordaining of women. The Church’s official position was that the slave was to be treated with the dignity of any other human being and the family unit of the slave be given respect and the family members not be sold off without respect for the families themselves. As for the south treating the African race as 5th class citizens as you say, it was little better in the north until recently, and the devastation of the south was a very large part of the south’s lagging behind the north economically. As with any defeated nation, war takes many, many years to recover from the effects. I doubt any credible historian would place ‘bad race relations’ as the primary reason the south wasn’t economically competitive with the north after the Civil War as you have here: Certainly not above the fact that the south had just been defeated and largely devastated by the north. You may have read a few text books Don, but the truth isn’t always well represented in text books. I never claimed the northern industrialist were all evil either, nor were all southern slave owners. Relations between most slave owners and their slaves were generally very good and a solid majority of the slaves were not interested in being forced out of this relationship and tossed onto the street. We use the example of those who abused and oppressed as a boilerplate description of the general circumstances in the south, but again, this is bad history propagated by the victors.
The African slave was generally much worse off after he was ‘set free’ than they had been before the war. This was just as the Church had warned. They had lost all security and were left to fend for themselves without the skills and preparation to integrate into society, and this was a huge injustice to them. This was my point, Donald.

Donald, before you go putting the Church in any worse light than you have in this case, (which may be difficult even for you), read this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm You have a very common and distorted concept of the Church’s position on slavery in this country. I’m sorry to inform you that the historical facts are not on your side as you think they are. BTW, if the Church was largely ‘MIA’ on this issue here in the US, it was because the Church was almost none existent here at the time of these events. You should be more careful about the charges you make against the Catholic Church in the future. You will give many the wrong impression of the Church due to your lack of accurate historical knowledge.

Donald,
You seem to be missing my point intentionally, or I have failed to get it across. The point is this: The actions of a few Catholic clergy or orders in the New World were NOT representative of the Universal Church’s Official position on slavery. The Catholic Church was a very small and largely suppressed organization here in the US prior to and during the time of the Civil War. As for the Jesuits in Maryland selling the slaves under their care, what would you have them freed into? They had no property, no means of participating in society. Were the Jesuits, in their mercy, supposed to simply open the front gate of the plantation and kick them out saying, ‘You’re free, go and prosper in your bright future. Good Luck!’? I’m pretty sure this would have been a terrible injustice, don’t you think? The Church thought it would be an injustice too. If the Jesuits sold their slaves instead of simply turning them loose, I have no doubt the intentions were that they were well placed and cared for in their new home. Their future was much more secure and comfortable than the alternative on the mean streets without means.
One must remember a couple of things: First that we can’t use our modern concept of justice and what is acceptable now as a template for understanding any given time in the past. This is very bad historical perspective and will never give anyone an accurate view of the time period in question. (Yet this seems to be to normal mode for modern historians writing text books). Second, and this goes hand-in-hand with the first point, one must understand the nature of ‘Slavery’ as a genus with several subspecies of slavery under this general category. All slavery was not intrinsically evil, and it was a matter of fact that the slave was often a valuable and happy member of the household living a productive life as such.
Many times the slave was not interested in emancipation. The slavery of the pagans was a different species than that of the Israelites/Jews for example. Both were called ‘slavery’, however, the former was a brutal injustice where the latter served justice. If the Catholic clergy or institution you mention owned slaves what evidence do you have that they abused them in any way? What evidence do you have that the slaves wanted emancipation? What possible alternative did the Jesuits have that would have better served the slaves in question? I have little doubt that the slaves there under Jesuit care were apprehensive about their future without the Jesuits!
It is also worth pointing out that the real issue wasn’t slaves working for their daily bread, as we all must do (and this was much more the reality in early 19th century America where there wasn’t an abundance of charitable institutions (thanks to the suppression of the catholic Church) and social programs to ‘lean on’), It was more the nature of the slave trade that enslaved whole races and subjected them to relocation, broken families and brutal conditions against their will. Once the ‘slave’ was here in the New World there weren’t many options for them. They had no means or skills to enter ‘modern civilization’ as equals. That’s the cold reality, Donald. But they were here, very many of them, and they had to be considered into the future of this nation, as they could not simply be deported back to a land and way of life that was totally alien to them now. The Church pressed for them to be educated and prepared for ‘freedom’ as the only just course for the future.
You may not know this Donald, but no one was interested in giving the newly freed slave any land to work or anything else necessary for survival to say nothing of a prosperous future. The States were angling against the Federal Government and the Native Americans were caught in the middle being squeezed off their lands. The Indians weren’t big fans of the slaves being given their lands either.
This was a completely different time than our own Donald, and you would be well served to remember that. Slavery was, in fact, a part of life. Your views are distorted by your modern perspective of the conditions as they were on the ground during this time. The slaves were here, they could not be sent back to a home that was now alien and would have amounted to a death sentence. They were not going to get free lands during a time where the land in their area was already under extreme pressure between the States, the Federal Government and the Native population. The Church reminded us that we had a humanitarian responsibility for these people as we had created the conditions in the first place. So what is your answer Donald? Just wage war to turn them out into the street, as the power brokers behind the political leaders/pawns did? The only people who gained from the Civil War were the only people who ever gain from armed conflict—the wealthy power brokers. Follow the money Donald, always follow the money. Stop blaming the Catholic Church for working within the given reality of the conditions at hand, conditions you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend.
Also remember that the Church’s primary mission is ministry to, for the sake of eternal salvation of, the eternal human soul; not simply providing for the body within which that eternal soul resides. Eternal Salvation was/is no less attainable from the bottom of the social ladder (slave) than from the top (slave owner). In fact it is often far more attainable from the bottom where one need not worry about driving that darn camel through the eye of that darn needle.
The bottom line is that the Catholic Church did as much as was within Her power in this situation, sadly that power was very limited in a firmly Protestant Nation. It is interesting that Canada and Mexico had no such dark past involving the Slavery. Perhaps that’s because the Catholic Church had much more authority in these nations which were much more Catholic in the first place. The Catholic Church was allowed to perform Her chartered Christian missions in these new lands, and the natives of these nations were the beneficiaries of that Universal Mission that has served humanity for nearly 2000 years now and has been solely responsible for the development of the greatest achievement in human history—Western Civilization. Civilization is always best served when the Church is unobstructed in fulfilling the Charter She was given by Jesus Christ Himself. That mission seeks first the Kingdom of God for the benefit of the Eternal human soul. When the body is served first, as is always the case with secular government institutions, nothing is served well, least of all humanity. Look around Donald and tell me I’m wrong.
I hope I’ve finally made my original point clear enough, as I will not participate in a ‘tit-for-tat’ squabbling session that often happens in these ‘blogging’ venues. Life’s too short to waste it arguing with people who think they know everything already. We might both be accused of that;)))

Pacem Paul and Mac.

No sense refighting the war.

Points of information (Roberts’ Rules of Order):

One: The Emancipation was not proclaimed until the war was flagrant nearly 2 years: after much bloodshed including Antietam and Fredricksburg.

Two: Except for politicians and radicals, the soldier probably did not believe ending slavery justified civil war or murder.

Three: War is all Hell. No one wins. There are fatigue, suffering and glory (Sherman’s definition). Although, it “beats” malignant melanoma . . .

Ah, the pleasure some people get tearing other people apart. I personally never met Ms. Howe, so I have no opinion of her. And furthermore, my mother was born in Mobile, AL and my dad in Pipestone, MN. That said, I have always and will always love the Battle Hymn of the Republic–period, end of report, as my dad was famous for saying. To each his own, but it sure is hateful to be so mean to someone who is dead.