Where did the CSA Battle Flag Come From?

The following content is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#First_national_flag_.28.22the_Stars_and_Bars.22.29

The Battle Flag

Often referred to as The battle flag of the Confederacy it was the design that was the basis of more than 180 separate Confederate military battle flags.^{[citation needed]}

The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag was usually square, of various sizes for the different branches of the service: 48 inches square for the infantry, 36 inches for the artillery, and 30 inches for the cavalry. It was used in battle beginning in December 1861 until the fall of the Confederacy. The blue color on the saltire in the battle flag was navy blue, as opposed to the much lighter blue of the Naval Jack.

The flag’s stars represented the number of states in the Confederacy. The distance between the stars decreased as the number of states increased, reaching thirteen when the secessionist factions of Kentuckyand Missouri joined in late 1861.^[12]

The Battle Flag of the Confederacy

At the First Battle of Manassas, the similarity between the Stars and Bars and the Stars and Stripes caused confusion and military problems. Regiments carried flags to help commanders observe and assess battles in the warfare of the era. At a distance, the two national flags were hard to tell apart. In addition, Confederate regiments carried many other flags, which added to the possibility of confusion. After the battle, General P.G.T. Beauregard wrote that he was “resolved then to have [our flag] changed if possible, or to adopt for my command a ‘Battle flag’, which would be Entirely different from any State or Federal flag.”^[4] He turned to his aide, who happened to be William Porcher Miles, the former chair of Committee on the Flag and Seal. Miles described his rejected national flag design to Beauregard. Miles also told the Committee on the Flag and Seal about the general’s complaints and request for the national flag to be changed. The committee rejected this idea by a four to one vote, after which Beauregard proposed the idea of having two flags. He described the idea in a letter to his commander General Joseph E. Johnston: “I wrote to [Miles] that we should have two flags—apeace or parade flag, and a war flag to be used only on the field of battle—but congress having adjourned no action will be taken on the matter—How would it do us to address the War Dept. on the subject of Regimental or badge flags made of red with two blue bars crossing each other diagonally on which shall be introduced the stars, … We would then on the field of battle know our friends from our Enemies.”^[4]

Sovereignty or Secession Flag

The flag that Miles had favored when he was chair of the Committee on the Flag and Seal eventually became the battle flag and, ultimately, the most popular flag of the Confederacy. According to historian John Coski, Miles’ design was inspired by one of the many “secessionist flags” flown at the South Carolina secession convention of December, 1860. That flag was a blue St George’s Cross (an upright or Latin cross) on a red field, with 15 white stars on the cross, representing the Confederate States (assumed to be the 15 slave states), and, on the red field, palmetto and crescent symbols. Miles received a variety of feedback on this design, including a critique from Charles Moise, a self-described “Southerner of Jewish persuasion”. Moise liked the design, but asked that “the symbol of a particular religion not be made the symbol of the nation.” Taking this into account, Miles changed his flag, removing the palmetto and crescent, and substituting a heraldic saltire (“X”) for the upright one. The number of stars was changed several times as well. He described these changes and his reasons for making them in early 1861. The diagonal cross was preferable, he wrote, because “it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews and many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus.” He also argued that the diagonal cross was “more Heraldric [sic] than Ecclesiastical, it being the ‘saltire’ of Heraldry, and significant of strength and progress.”^[13]

According to Coski, the Saint Andrew’s Cross had no special place in Southern iconography at the time, and if Miles had not been eager to conciliate the Southern Jews his flag would have used the traditional Latin, Saint George’s Cross. A colonel named James B. Walton submitted a battle flag design essentially identical to Miles’ except with an upright Saint George’s cross, but Beauregard chose the diagonal cross design.^[14]

Specifically, the St. Andrew’s Cross is a white saltire on a blue field, as in the national flag of Scotland. The St. Patrick’s Cross, as in the state flag of Alabama, is a red saltire on a white field. The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag has a blue saltire on a red field and is, therefore, neither the St. Andrew’s nor the St. Patrick’s Cross but a saltire as in the proposed but unadopted Second National flag.

Miles’ flag, and all the flag designs up to that point, were rectangular (“oblong”) in shape. General Johnston suggested making it square instead to conserve material. Johnston also specified the various sizes to be used by different types of military units. Generals Beauregard and Johnston and Quartermaster General Cabell approved the design of the 12-star Confederate Battle Flag at the Ratcliffe home, which served briefly as Beauregard’s headquarters, near Fairfax Court House in September 1861. The 12th star represented Missouri. President Jefferson Davis arrived by train at Fairfax Station soon after and was shown the design for the new battle flag at the Ratcliffe House. Hetty Cary and her sister and cousin made prototypes. One such 12-star flag resides in the collection of Richmond’s Museum of the Confederacy and the other is in Confederate Memorial Hall in New Orleans.

On November 28, 1861, Confederate soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia received the new battle flags in ceremonies at Centreville and Manassas, Virginia, and carried them throughout the Civil War. Beauregard gave a speech encouraging the soldiers to treat this new flag with honor and that it must never be surrendered. Many soldiers wrote home about the ceremony and the impression the flag had upon them, the “fighting colors” boosting morale after the confusion at the Battle of First Manassas. From that point on, the battle flag only grew in its identification with the Confederacy and the South in general.^[15] Later, a 13th star was added for Kentucky.

The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag assumed a prominent place post-war when it was adopted as the copyrighted emblem of the United Confederate Veterans. Its continued use by the UCV and the later Sons of Confederate Veterans led to the assumption that it was, as it has been termed, “the soldier’s flag” or “the Confederate battle flag”.

The flag is also properly known as the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was sometimes called “Beauregard’s flag” or “the Virginia battle flag”. A Virginia Department of Historic Resources marker declaring Fairfax, Virginia, as the birthplace of the Confederate battle flag was dedicated on April 12, 2008, near the intersection of Main and Oak Streets, Fairfax, VA.^[16][17][18]

The Sons of Confederate Veterans consider themselves the direct heirs of their ancestors’ battle flags.

Race in the South Since 1877

History of the South / BJU / 2010 / Final Exam / “B”

Since 1877, the South has been a region undeniably marked by racism. Though racism exists equally in the North, the focal point of the race battle has been in the South. The aim of this essay is to see how race has effected white and black Southerners since 1877 and the end of Radical Reconstruction.

Immediately after the end of Civil War Reconstruction and more specifically, the removal of Union troops from the South, Southern whites–acting on racial attitudes and fear of black bitterness–made great efforts to unofficially put blacks back under the white supremacy equal to that of institutional slavery. Before Federal soldiers returned North, blacks had experienced freedom and opportunity for social advancement in business and even politics. Blacks saw those new liberties as the fulfillment of the reconstruction promise; the dream of freedom had been realized in the eyes of former slaves. However, Southern whites saw the presence of Federal troops and black politicians as the ultimate insult and a severe threat to Southern society. While blacks rejoiced, whites were only made more bitter and vengeful. Naturally, the removal of Federal troops gave whites the chance to secure their society from blacks and place them back under white supremacy. Though legally protected from slavery, blacks had no such protection from Southern animositybrought on by the presence of Federal troops and the appointment of blacks in Southern political offices.

The Southern answer for the black problem was none other than the systematic disfranchisement of blacks. The main method was the utilization of sharecropping. To the black freedman, sharecropping was a great step up from slavery. Blacks could work their own land, own their own homes and set their own labor pace. However appealing to blacks, the whites knew it was nothing more than glorified slavery, because whites often deliberately made the contracts such as the black farmer became infinitely bound in debt and was essentially a legal-bound slave to the landlord. Sharecropping became slavery under a new name and a legal way to keep blacks from ever rising socially or economically.

Another aspect of disfranchisement was education. Uneducated people cannot rise in society; therefore Southerners made it very difficult for a black person to receive an education. Some whites truly believed blacks were inferior biologically and could never benefit from an education, but most whites knew better and feared that an educated black would prove harmful to white society. Whites believed that an educated black would use his or her power to turn against the South and rally support. Black schools were rare and poor due to the previous ban on education of blacks during slavery. Blacks wanted desperately to learn to read and write. They had been kept in darkness for generations and now wanted to prove themselves and excel in society.

Enter Jim Crow. Eventually, the South as a whole took  more drastic and comprehensive action to maintain white supremacy. The answer was racial segregation. Whites felt the only way to white dominance was to legally keep blacks separate from whites to preserve society from inferior beings polluting it. This elaborate, multidimensional plan of segregation is known as “Jim Crow.” It spanned the whole of black life; business, education, society, voting and religion–there was almost no end to its application. Blacks could live freely and progress, but only within distinct boundaries. Socially, blacks could not eat, ride or shop where whites did. Blacks had separate restaurants, transportation, restrooms, churches, schools and businesses. While many blacks such as W.E.B. Du Bois resented and condemned segregation, others such as Booker T. Washington saw racial segregation as better than previous conditions under slavery and as opportunity for black progress and social advancement. Washington was greatly liked by whites but despised by many blacks, who saw him as a traitor to his race.

It appears that it was religion which gave blacks greatest refuge from Jim Crow. Through their Negro spirituals and traditional worship methods, they coped and sought to win white sympathy by remembering and preserving their African heritage. Blacks met worshiped exclusively in black congregations. Towards the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, there would be a great blurring of the lines between black religion and politics. By the end of the movement, even to the present, black preachers and politicians would be almost synonymous.

Under Jim Crow, some extremely radical whites did resort to intimidation and violence to oppose black insubordination to the system. The most notable of course is the Ku Klux Klan–which resorted to lynching and various forms of violence to maintain white supremacy through fear. Towards the 1930′s, Southern progressives began to emerge. They believed in Jim Crow and accepted it, but desired to mend the past violence and improve race relations.

After World War Two and Americans witnessing the horrors of racism in Hitler’s Holocaust of the Jews, the nation was greatly softening and many whites saw the grizzly end racism would lead to: hatred and genocide. The Holocaust was a wake up call to whites and made them less hostile to blacks and fertilized the ground for the Civil Rights Movement.

Also causing a wave of release in the South was the Great Migration of blacks to the North. With fewer blacks in the South, whites felt more secure and less need for strict observance of the Jim Crow laws. The rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt gave blacks a new hero to hope in. F.D.R. was the new Abraham Lincoln and gave new hope to blacks and their future generations. Blacks became Democrats due to F.D.R.’s efforts to give them employment opportunities.

The Civil Rights Movement is defined as the battle for black right taken from the courtrooms to the streets. The battle for racial equality was now militant, visible and revolutionary. The key, public icon of the movement was none other than Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. King was a terrible father, husband, minister and infamously plagiarized, but his use of Christian language rallied support from blacks and conservative whites. King’s words transcended the race barrier. The movement really kicked off during the Montgomery Bus Boycott where Rosa Parks publicly refused to give her seat to a white. Whites were often not happy with King or the movement and resorted aggression and violence. Though white fears were diminishing, radical whites still made efforts to maintain white supremacy. White politicians quickly realized the potential votes to be gotten from the black population and eventually brought about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and gave blacks eternal freedom from Jim Crow. Blacks were now legally equal to white citizens. Despite fierce resistance from several states–especially Mississippi and Alabama, under men such as governor George C. Wallace, famous for his statement: “Segregation today, tomorrow and forever!”– the government ended racial segregation and integrated blacks into white society. This infuriated many whites, not so much as the fact that blacks were now equal with them, but because the Federal government stepped in to do it. Once again, as blacks celebrated, many whites were even more outraged than ever before. Despite white outrage, the law of the land was racial equality.

Today in the South, there are indeed scars of racism. Groups such as the NAACP and the UCLA only fuel the remaining racist sentiments. The blame for racism is placed almost exclusively on the South–even identifying the Confederate battle flag as the ultimate symbol of racism. However, any educated student of History will know that the Civil War was fought for over o dozen reasons deemed more important than slavery; and to suggest to Southerners they fought and died for black slaves alone is considered an insult. Such ignorance on the part of non-Southerners, and groups as the NAACP no doubt create more problems than they solve.

Religion is the final pillar of the Civil Rights Movement, as the movement itself was abandoned in the late 60′s when it became violent. As previously noted, the lines between black politics and religion are often merged and indistinguishable. As in the day of MLK, black preachers are often synonymous with political activists. Names such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and now Jeremiah Wright are perfect examples of remaining black bitterness towards whites and the South. Sadly, they usually associate the Confederate cause with slavery and racism–an incomplete and historically ignorant assessment.

The issue of race in the South no longer is exclusively focussed on blacks. Recent bursts of immigration–both legal and illegal–have brought to the scene Hispanics,  Asians, Indians and even Germans.  Just recently, South Carolina elected its first Sikh governor. Who knows where the race issue will lead? Only time will tell. One thing is for sure; race will always affect the South–regardless of which people group is in the spotlight.

 

 

The Origin and Development of Slavery in the South

The concept and practice of slavery have been around since time of the Old Testament, which means slavery could be at least 6,000 years old. However, slavery in the Old Testament and that of the 1600-1800′s were not the same form of slavery. Bible-time slavery was based on debts, crimes or prisoners of war–which gave the master the right to demand lifelong servitude from the offender.

The first time slavery was based on race appears to have been through the European sugar industry–primarily in Great Britain, though Portugal and other European nations took part as well. Slavery on the basis of race came from the European association of blackness with depravity and sin. Europeans also viewed Blacks as inferior biological beings who needed to be Christianized and civilized.

The slave trade of Europe eventually reached the colonies in America in the 1700′s. Before black slaves, colonists used Indians as slaves and blacks as indentured servants. Some indentured servants were poor whites from Europe. The attitudes of racism and white supremacy eventually gave blacks the exclusive place in society as slaves or “property.”

Life as a black slave was not at all a pleasant one. Though most Southerners treated their slaves with care and respect, the motive usually one of preserving a property investment. Because slaves were highly valuable and very expensive, many whites treated them well for the sake of not damaging their investment. Even though some Christian whites made special efforts to evangelize blacks, the slaves were never seen as equals in society and were ultimately the legal property of a superior white master.

The work was hard and tedious, but the worst aspect of slave life was the absence of freedom. A slave was allowed no freedom, education, no rights, no termination of employment and no guarantee of honored marriages or family ties. Black families were often split at slave auctions due to their high cost. Marriages were never final or secure because they were not legally recognized by white owners and could  be terminated the instant an owner sold one of the spouses.

Slaves were allowed a few privileges.  Some could grow their own gardens for extra food; some could attend church–but only seated in the rear or the balcony. Because of their value to whites, many slaves were better provided for than Northern free employees. Slaves were fed, clothed and housed. Though slave provisions were modest compared to their white masters, blacks had more security than most industrial workers in the North did.

The main crops harvested by slaves were rice, indigo, cotton and tobacco. Slavery proved to be highly profitable for Southerners; aside from minor costs of owning slaves, the income on a slave plantation was most agreeable to whites. Slavery was the foundation of the South’s economy and would never be easily ended or relinquished.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of slavery is its entanglement with evangelical Christianity. For whites, Christianity was mostly a convenient way to make slaves obedient, submissive to white supremacy and hard workers. Passages in Philemon were utilized (out of context) to teach slaves that running away was a sin and that blacks had a Scriptural obligation to work hard for life under their white masters.

Many slave owners made sure their slaves were well acquainted with Christianity. They often invited white ministers to hold services on the plantations specifically for the slaves. Though some whites sincerely cared for the slaves’ souls, most used it to gain leverage over the slaves. Sadly, many verses were misused by whites to gain spiritually supported dominance over the blacks and hold them in psychological bondage in addition to physical enslavement.

Freedom for blacks was almost impossible until after the Civil War. Before slavery was abolished, the only successful means of escape was to receive aid from the Underground Railroad. But even an escaped slave fled the South, there were just as many enemies in the North who might return them out of racist hate or desire for reward money. Federal legislation gave no protection to the escaped slave–therefore leaving escapees to live in constant fear and insecurity.

Institutional race Slavery was a black mark on the entire human race, not only the South, but the nation. If we pin slavery on the South alone, we display ignorance of the Historical record and fact. Racism towards blacks was not exclusive to the South; it was a nation-wide problem.

 

The grade of “B” was received from Dr. Carl Abrams in “The History of the South” class at BJU 2010.

 

Destined to Conflict

The following essay was my first test in “History of the South” this year. The question was to examine and explain the heritage and mindset of the South, contrast it with the North and explain why the two regions were destined to conflict.

Introduction

Even previous to the American Revolution, there has always been two very different heritages and mindsets of the North and the South. Let’s observe the heritage of each region and then move onto each region’s mindset. It is the thesis of this essay that these two region’s differences made future conflict, whether political or militarily inevitable.

The Northern Heritage

The North was essentially founded by Protestants (Puritans) who sought religious freedom and an opportunity to reform society with implementing laws, morals and priorities that focussed on godly living and a heavily Reformed religious backdrop. These Protestants made their priorities church, family and eventually education.

Before the first Pilgrims set foot at Plymouth, the establishment of a formal government was already heavily on their minds. The North has always seen itself as the political leader/region of the North American continent. Northerners have generally always held to Federalist political view–meaning they believed in compromise among colonies or states for the larger benefit of the nation . Often, the North has never made huge distinction between their region and the nation . Their leaders have always considered the North as the nation and not so much as a region of that nation.

Also important to note is that the North has always dominated in industry and mass production where the South has come nowhere near such large scale industry or production. This remains so in many senses even into the present day United States.

The Southern Heritage

The South, while now regarded as vastly more religiously influenced and receptive than the North, was not originally so. Jamestown, Virginia was not loaded with devout Christians seeking religious sanctuary; if one came to Jamestown, he was most likely interested in financial profit. The priorities of the South have historically been agriculture, local government and self interests. While Southerners have never lacked national patriotism–for the nation’s greatest patriots have been from the South–they felt an even stronger tie and dominating obligation to their local area or state.

The family and religion were not originally priorities. Family and church would not become key until after the Great Awakening. The first Southerners were mostly business-minded people and indentured servants. Slavery did not begin to take hold until the early days surrounding the Revolution. Slavery would evolve primarily by how economic it would prove to be for Southerners. Though many Northerners agreed with and participated in the slave trade, the South made slavery far more rewarding and institutionalized.

Note:  The vast differences, and I would feel comfortable calling them “polar opposites,” of the North and South almost guaranteed from the beginning an unavoidable conflict between Northern and Southern interests. While the North argued from strong, central government, the South cried “small government with severely limited power.  While the South argued for strict interpretation of the Constitution, the North was inclined to favor a more liberal and relative interpretation. Quite frankly, I am confounded about how the Civil War did not occur earlier than it did. It almost did occur between the Tariff dispute between president Andrew Jackson and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun. (Great for further reading on the South / North conflict.)

Contrasting Mindsets of the North and South

The precursory events leading up the Civil War are often blamed solely on slavery. While slavery cannot be ignored or minimized, there were much larger issues under the “iceberg tip” of slavery. While slavery is the thing most easily recognizable to the casual reader and student of American History, a deeper study will show the true battle to be the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution. The South believed that if the Federal government got rid of slavery–which the Constitution gave no power to do–they could then usurp any power they fancied. Also worth noting is that had slavery been abolished instantly, the Southern economy would have been completely devastated–almost without Northern sympathy. Southern livelihood depended on agriculture, which meant labor, which in turn meant slaves; remove the slaves, remove the labor and derail the economy. Even though many Southerners saw the evil of slavery and truly felt guilt over it, they could not find a solution to instantly abolish it without self-destructing the economy. The North was viewed much like another Great Britain and King George III, for the North repeatedly ignored Southern concerns and interests and passed legislation that continued to hurt the South while helping the North or “benefiting the nation.” The South never saw national compromise as part of their constitutional obligation and rightly so. Northern attempts to ban slavery in the South were seen as direct attacks on Southern economy and livelihood. Despite the moral dilemma of slavery, the South was completely right in perceiving the North as a threat to their livelihood and economy. The Civil war was simply the culmination of two conflicting mindsets. After many attempts by Southern politicians to appeal their case and beg the North to stop infringing on their rights and interests, the North only ignored them and tightened its grasp on the South. If the South did not take drastic action, her constitutionally guaranteed rights would only continue to slip away and the Constitution would be trampled over more and more. War was the last resort of the crisis; a crisis already fought with compromises, fiery speeches, literature and a growing Southern distrust of the North.

Conclusion

These polar opposites seemed destined for a great conflict in ideals–ultimately turning into a bloody Civil War; a war of ideals; a war of state’s rights; a war of Constitutional interpretation.

My Additional Remarks

From my study on this subject, I make the case that the central issue of American History has and always will be the interpretation of the United States Constitution. It was written by men who had fought against Great Britain for the right to have their own freedoms and liberties. No other document save the Holy Scriptures has been under more constant attack from within the United States. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, liberal politicians and presidents have tried to interpret it loosely or disregard it altogether. Though the president swears an oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution, that oath is nothing more than a formality today. Even the current leader of out nation has violated this document tremendously, for by it, he should not even be allowed to become our leader or remain it. Even now with the immigration controversy between Arizona and the Federal government, the theme of state’s rights and Constitutional interpretation rings loud and clear. The Civil War did not end the state’s rights issue, it only intensified it and demonstrated the necessity of free Americans to stand, unto death, against those who would trample, ignore or even attempt to dissolve the United States Constitution.

I leave you with a quote:

“I love the Union, but I would rather leave the Union with my Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

~Jefferson Davis.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic is Blasphemous?

Blasphemy in Song

by Laurence M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance

//

This past weekend, since it was the closest weekend to the Fourth of July holiday that we observe today, churches all across America resounded with patriotic songs. Although the wisdom of singing patriotic songs in church is itself a debatable proposition, there should be no debate in any church about uttering words of blasphemy, whether spoken or sung. Yet, the patriotic song that is perhaps the one most frequently sung in the churches of America – for the Fourth of July or otherwise – is the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” But this so-called hymn is no Christian hymn at all – it is blasphemy in song.

Most Americans are familiar with the words of this “hymn”:

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.
Chorus
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
Chorus
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.”
Chorus
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
Chorus
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Chorus
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Chorus

The chorus is, of course, as follows:

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

Although most Americans who are familiar with this “patriotic anthem” rightly connect it with the so-called Civil War, many probably don’t know who wrote it, and even fewer know anything about how it came about.

The author of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” was the abolitionist and social activist, Julia Ward Howe (1819–1910). The song first appeared, minus the last verse, on the front cover of The Atlantic Monthly for February 1862. That it originally had six verses can be seen by looking at her first draft, which was written on a scrap of Sanitary Commission paper. Christian hymnbooks that contain this song only include verses one, two, four, and five. The words as it was first published are slightly different than her original draft, which is transcribed here.

The tune is from a camp-meeting song with a “Glory Hallelujah” refrain by William Steffe, written about 1856. This tune was in turn used for what became the Union marching song, “John Brown’s Body,” the first verse of which begins by repeating three times: “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave,” and ends with: “His soul goes marching on!” Other lines read: “They will hang Jeff. Davis to a sour apple tree!” and “Now, three rousing cheers for the Union.”

According to the account in Julia Ward Howe, 1819–1910 by Laura E. Richards, et al. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1915), in December of 1861, as Howe returned

from a review of troops near Washington, her carriage was surrounded and delayed by the marching regiments: she and her companions sang, to beguile the tedium of the way, the war songs which every one was singing in those days; among them –

“John Brown’s body lies a-moulding in the grave.

His soul is marching on!”

The soldiers liked this, cried, “Good for you!” and took up the chorus with its rhythmic swing.

“Mrs. Howe,” said Mr. Clarke, “why do you not write some good words for that stirring tune?”

“I have often wished to do so!” she replied.

Waking in the gray of the next morning, as she lay waiting for the dawn, the word came to her.

“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord – “

She lay perfectly still. Line by line, stanza by stanza, the words came sweeping on with the rhythm of marching feet, pauseless, resistless. She saw the long lines swinging into place before her eyes, heard the voice of the nation speaking through her lips. She waited till the voice was silent, till the last line was ended; then sprang from bed, and groping for pen and paper, scrawled in the gray twilight the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” She was used to writing thus; verses often came to her at night, and must be scribbled in the dark for fear of waking the baby; she crept back to bed, and as she fell asleep she said to herself, “I like this better than most things I have written.” In the morning, while recalling the incident, she found she had forgotten the words.

Ignorance of history is no sin, and can easily be remedied with a computer and a search engine or a trip to the library. But more important than the history behind this “hymn” is the theology behind it. Hymns are sung in church as part of the worship of God. They contain a spiritual message. Hymns should not be sung in church merely because they have a nice tune. The words of a hymn are therefore very important.

Although the Bible likens Christians to soldiers (2 Timothy 2:3), and the Christian life to a battle (1 Timothy 1:18), the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is not a song that should be on the lips of any Christian. It is not a Christian hymn at all. It is a disgrace that the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” even appears in a Christian hymnbook alongside of such great hymns of the faith as: “Blessed Redeemer,” “All Hail the Power of Jesus Name,” “The Way of the Cross Leads Home,” “That Beautiful Name,” and “O Worship the King.” Julia Ward Howe was a Unitarian, and wrote the song as a partisan Unionist during the beginning of the Civil War. The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is religious war propaganda. It is no more a Christian hymn than “White Christmas.”

Like many who lived during the nineteenth century, Howe was very familiar with the Bible. Consequently, the language and imagery of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” are largely biblical. The problem, however, is that Howe applied the judgment of the “day of the Lord” to the destruction of the Southern armies by the North.

A brief historical and biblical analysis of each verse of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is as follows:

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.

“Mine eyes have seen” is from the prophet Isaiah’s vision of the Lord “sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1). But rather than seeing the coming of the Lord, Isaiah saw “the King, the LORD of hosts” (Isaiah 6:5). Howe never saw the coming of the Lord, and the very idea that the coming of the Union Army was akin to the coming of the Lord is blasphemous. “Trampling out the vintage” is a reference to the end times spoken of in the Book of Revelation: “the wine of the wrath of God” (Revelation 14:10), “the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath” (Revelation 16:19), “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Revelation 19:15). Howe originally used the word “winepress” instead of “vintage.” The word “trampling” is taken from the Old Testament: “I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment” (Isaiah 63:3). Lightning is sometimes associated with the judgment of God (Psalm 18:14, 144:6; Revelation 8:5, 11:19, 16:18). The “terrible swift sword” is a reference to Christ’s sword (Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 2:16, 19:15, 19:21). God’s truth is not marching on, it is “fallen in the street” (Isaiah 59:14). And the Union Army marching is certainly not God’s truth personified, not when the Bible reserves that honor for Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

In this verse God is said to be in the camps of the Union Army, a dubious proposition, considering that it was an invading army. “Builded Him an altar” is straight out of the Bible (Genesis 8:20; Exodus 24:4; Ezra 3:2). God’s “righteous sentence” is perhaps taken from references to God’s “righteous judgment” (Romans 2:5) or “righteous judgments” (Psalm 119:160). “His day” is a reference to the “day of the Lord,” falsely equating the marching of the Union Army with the judgment of God.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.”

This verse is so blasphemous that it is not included in Christian hymnals that contain the “Battle Hymn.” Perhaps if it was then Christians would have their eyes opened as to the true nature of this “hymn.” The “burnished rows of steel” refer to the polished Union cannons. This is not the “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). This is “another gospel,” of which the Apostle Paul said: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). And what grace is this: Punish the evil Southerners and I will give you grace? This concept of grace is foreign to the New Testament. Jesus Christ crushing the serpent with his heel is a perversion of Genesis 3:15 where the Lord says to the serpent: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” And in the New Testament, when the Apostle Paul said that “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20), he was not referring to anything that was to take place during the American Civil War. And God certainly was not “marching on” under the figure of the Union Army.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

Howe’s reference to a trumpet instead of a bugle has biblical overtones. A trumpet figures prominently in references to the end times (Matthew 24:31; 1 Corinthians 15:52; Revelation 1:10, 4:1, 8:13, 9:14). The judgment seat is a reference to the judgment seat of Christ, mentioned twice by the Apostle Paul (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10). God has not yet sifted out the hearts of Christians at this judgment, nor yet the hearts of anyone else at the “great white throne” judgment (Revelation 20:11–13). One thing is for sure, Christians had better be swift to answer the Lord at the Judgment when asked why they sang such a blasphemous song.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Christ was not born “in the beauty of the lilies.” He was laid in a manger (Luke 2:7), not in a garden. The “glory in His bosom” is certainly scriptural, and is a reference to the account of Christ’s transfiguration before his disciples where “his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light” (Matthew 17:2). But he was the one who was transfigured. The glory of Christ transfiguring “you and me” is pure universalism as advocated by Unitarians. The third line in this verse is one of the most egregious in the whole “hymn.” Not only does the phrase “as he died to make men holy” also smack of universalism, equating the Atonement of the Son of God with the death of Union soldiers supposedly dying to “make men free,” it is the height of blasphemy. This phrase also shows us that there are other reasons besides biblical ones for not singing the “Battle Hymn,” for, theological questions aside, the Union soldiers didn’t “die to make men free.” This is the great myth of the Civil War, and would be news to Abraham Lincoln since he maintained that freeing the slaves was not what his war was about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, Lincoln explained:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, 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.

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since not only did it only apply to slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the United States, where the U.S. government had no authority, but it specifically exempted all the territory that was occupied by Union armies, where the U.S. government had authority. The fact that many churches today in the Deep South sing the “Battle Hymn” shows just how strong this myth has taken hold. For the deflating of more myths of the Civil War, see my article on slavery myths and Thomas DiLorenzo’s article on Lincoln myths.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.

This verse was probably omitted early on because it is noticeably different from the others. Excepting the last line, some of the concepts are biblical, but have nothing to do with the Civil War.

In 1901, in the wake of American imperialism in the Spanish and Philippine Wars, Mark Twain penned a parody of the “Battle Hymn,” from the perspective of an American industrialist, entitled “The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Updated”:

Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger’s wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.

I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps-
His night is marching on.

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!”

We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom-and for others’ goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich –
Our god is marching on.

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” ought to be parodied, satirized, and lampooned. It has nothing to do with God or Christianity. It is not a Christian hymn. It does not belong in a Christian hymnbook. It should not be sung in any Christian church – Northern or Southern. It should not be on the lips of any Christian – Yankee or Southerner. It is partisan political paean to bogus history and faulty theology. For much too long Christians have sung this “hymn” with religious fervor while remaining in ignorance as to its history and theology. For much too long pastors and song leaders have included this “hymn” in church services without stopping to consider whether it is an appropriate song for a Christian worship service. Disparaging the singing of this song has nothing to do with being a Confederate sympathizer, or being unpatriotic or anti-Lincoln, but it has everything to do with exercising biblical discernment. Traditions are hard to break, and especially religious ones, but the singing of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is one that must go.

July 4, 2006

My Comments:

I was thrilled to find an article so thorough and clear on this often ignored topic. I found this information almost 6 years ago and have since refused to sing it. It is no more a Christian song than Elvis Presley’s “Blue Suede Shoes.” Regardless of what side of the Mason Dixie Line you defend or are from, simple examination of this song in light of history and Scripture will clearly and overwhelmingly show that it has no place in any songbook, let alone a Church hymnal. Let us not sing “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord,” but of “Mine eyes have seen the blasphemy against the Holy Word!”

God bless, and good evening.

Ken Willis