Boy, July is just chock full of wonderful things isn’t it? Fireworks, watermelon, picnics, and getting to hear Christians rejoice over the destruction other Christians suffered in the 19th century — what could be more fun that this?
What’s that? You didn’t catch the last one? Oh sure you did. Who has a “patriotic service” nowadays without including a stirring rendition of Julia Ward Howe’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic” (preferably with lots of violins and trumpets)? Well, nearly everybody, that’s who.
I just watched a special “Celebrate America” worship service from a prominent church which included (with full orchestration) a rousing performance of this “hymn.” Brought the congregation to tears and to their feet with a standing ovation. It gave me shivers too . . . of a somewhat different sort.
“The Battle Hymn” was written by Mrs. Julia Howe, wife of Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, medical doctor who had gained a world-wide reputation for his work with the deaf and blind (and not-so-well-known secret supporter and co-conspirator with John Brown, the terrorist whom Dr. Howe and five other wealthy New Englanders — the notorious “Secret Six” — secretly funded for the purpose of starting a slave revolt in the South). Mrs. Howe had been reared in a solidly Christian home, but, like so many of her contemporaries, she had rejected Biblical teachings for the new Unitarianism that had become all the rage in the middle of the 19th century.
As a Unitarian, Mrs. Howe had rejected the Calvinistic training of her childhood and no longer believed in a literal coming of the Lord or a final day of judgment as both the Bible and the historic Christian creeds taught. Neither she nor her husband believed in special revelation or biblical salvation. Her faith rested in the “law of progress” and the perfectibility of man. God’s judgment was meted out here on earth by men who acted as His appointed emissaries. Thus, in her famous poem, the “Lord’s coming” is seen in the coming of the Union armies, trampling out the South, which is viewed as the spawn of Satan, the vineyard that must be trampled by the Northern armies as the rod of God’s wrath.
The second verse of her poem expresses her faith. She sees Jesus in the watch-fires of the Union army (“I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps”). Those fires are like an altar on which the wicked will be sacrificed (“they have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps”). The Union army is the arm of the Lord to carry out His righteous judgment against the South (“I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps; His day [i.e., Judgment Day] is marching on”).
The third verse of the “Hymn” is a tad too blatant even for evangelical taste, so it is commonly omitted in hymnals (and in the bombastic choir renditions): “I have read the fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel. As ye deal with My contempters, so with you My grace shall deal; Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel. Since God is marching on.” Here Mrs. Howe gets explicit regarding what she’s talking about in her poem. The gospel is writ not in the Scriptures but in “burnished rows of steel” (the shining bayonets of the army). The army’s job is to bring in the kingdom by destroying God’s “contempters” — the better they do that, the more grace they will receive and, further, as they do that, they, as the ordained representatives of the Savior, will fulfill the promise of “crushing the serpent.”
Mrs. Howe was not being sacrilegious — at least, not in her mind. She openly rejected Christ and the Biblical gospel. She did not believe in the need for forgiveness or grace in the Biblical sense. After the war, she stated, “Not until the Civil War did I officially join the Unitarian church and accept the fact the Christ was merely a great teacher with no higher claim to preeminence in wisdom, goodness, and power than any other man. . . . I threw away, once and forever, the thought of the terrible hell which appears to me impossible.” The only salvation that could be obtained was that of ridding the world of those miscreants who disagreed with her and her Unitarian friends. She believed that the destruction of the South was a major step forward in the “redemption” of our country and the world (and to Julia, anytime you have the opportunity to cleanse the world of Satan’s children, it stands to reason that you should take advantage of it, regardless of how it is to be done).
Mrs Howe’s righteous indignation against the slave-holding South did not carry with it a corresponding respect for the black slaves, however. In a private letter she gave her opinion of the slaves. They are “as ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest of brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anybody.” She concluded by wondering if compulsory labor was not better than no labor at all. In other words, since good help is so hard to find, maybe slavery ain’t so bad after all.
So, given these facts, why is it that Christians now sing this song with tears in their eyes and the swelling feeling of nobility in their hearts? Probably for the same reason we have worship services devoted to the praise of our country rather than to the praise of God. We love to feel good. Most of all, let us feel good and noble, and if possible, superior to those who disagree with us. Yep. That’s our chief end. And we’re all convinced that God understands.
Amen. Thanks Steve. I had to explain this “hymn” to a friend the other day. He had no idea.
Ouch. That’ll leave a mark.
Question, what about this verse?
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.
That one seems to have more of an orthodox Christian slant.
Julia did believe that Jesus was a teacher (and a pretty good one) but denied His divinity and the need for any work of redemption. In her mind, His death was exemplary not necessary for our salvation. That didn’t mean that she didn’t see a need for “holiness”. Christ’s life and death serves as a great example to stir men to holiness, fine and good. But the real work must be carried out now, by us, living to make men free. And by “living” she meant fighting and killing the enemy in order to free the slaves (which, by the way, she didn’t want living freely around her!). That’s how God was marching on, advancing the “Kingdom” through the war against the South.
But Howe’s belief that eradicating slavery and liberating slaves is consistent with the justice of God is *not* incompatible with orthodox Christianity. Her conversion to Unitarianism doesn’t change that.
If Wilkins objects to warfare (or particular tactics of warfare) as a means of bringing about justice, let him simply say that. Something like “Liberating slaves is an excellent goal to which all Christians must aspire, but killing human beings is never justified,” for example. Pacifism has a long tradition within Christianity. But don’t make an argument that sounds like “eradicating slavery isn’t really something that God cares about, and Southerners weren’t really doing anything wrong.” That won’t work.
qat,
maybe you should read this again slowly. Somehow, you’ve missed the point by around a 1000 miles or so.
I’m all for freeing slaves and when slavery is finally completely abolished, the party will be at my house.
And further, I have no problem with war . . . so long as it is just war. What the Union army did down here was far from that – and it had nothing to do with freeing the slaves. (but if you want to write in support of the rape and pillage of innocent non-combatants, knock yourself out, just don’t expect a whole lot of applause from the rest of us)
Mrs. Howe saw the actions of the Northern armies as just and righteous and praised these actions in her “hymn.” Like it or not, it’s a ode to militarism and total war, not a hymn rejoicing over the freeing of slaves. So, I say, pick something else to sing.
I have noticed over the years the tendency of unlearned Christians to sing this Unitarian dirge. In some cases I have handed out written material showing the Unitarian and anti-Christian nature of this “hymn” which should be in no Christian hymnbook.
Years ago, while living in Illinois, I went to a Friday night “sing-fest” type of gathering and the person picking out the hymns wanted to know what I’d do if they sang Mrs. Howe’s Unitarian song. I told him plainly that they were free to sing whatever they wanted but I’d wait in the other room until they were finished with that one, as I refused to sing it. They didn’t sing it and the man who played the piano that night even gave us a couple bars of Dixie. Christians who don’t know their history fall for every anti-Christian thing that comes down the pike and they never seem to learn.
Al Benson Jr.
Steve, no amount of insulting me is going to help your case. That bit about the war having “nothing to do with freeing the slaves” seals the deal: this post is really just (erroneous) Southern-apologia and the references to Julia Ward Howe merely window-dressing (which makes the historical errors unsurprising). Howe did not favor anything like “total war,” as her life’s work testifies. But then, if you’d carefully read the lyrics of her “Battle Hymn” poem and given due thought to its context, you’d know the poem is about eradicating slavery and liberating slaves.
Meanwhile, the “Battle Hymn” lyrics don’t represent Unitarianism so much as the classic postmillennialism that dominated 19th century Protestantism. Howe’s lyrics reflect the views of many evangelical Christians of her era: that God was using the Civil War to purge the evil of slavery from America, a cleansing they considered necessary to the coming/advancing of God’s Kingdom on earth. There are innumerable explorations of this in books and articles about Christian postmillennialism of the time. Here’s a sample: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1999/issue61/61h028.html. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica’s articles on “Millennialism” and “Eschatology” use Howe’s poem as an obvious example of typical postmillennialist thought among American Protestants of the 19th century.
qat,
again, let me try one more time to be clear. I wasn’t trying to insult you, just trying to reiterate the point I was trying to make and you seem to be missing. My reference was to the actions of the Union army toward the non-combatants in the South, NOT to the stated purpose of the war itself. Of course, Lincoln and the radicals stated that the War was a War to free slaves. Nobody disputes that. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the prominent proponents of this “sacred cause.” And that doesn’t mean that freeing slaves was a bad thing in the least. I’m still in favor of it and look forward to the day when it actually happens.
AND, you’re also correct that Howe’s lyrics reflect a certain form of the postmillenial hope (see Earnest Lee Tuveson’s Redeemer Nation) but it was NOT classic, biblical postmillennialism. And that’s my point. Her Unitarianism left her with nothing but humanism. There was no grace, no gracious purpose, no sovereign God, no incarnate Savior, no biblical salvation. Mrs. Howe and her theological descendants gave birth to modern “America.”
[and this is my last response unless you want to give us your real name. thanks.]
If your real gripe is that Union soldiers did not act according to jus in bello as you understand it, that has nothing to do with Julia Howe, and she could have been left out of the original post entirely.
It is possible for a person both to oppose slavery and to harbor racial prejudices without being a “hypocrite.” Many abolitionists harbored racist prejudices, both conscious and unconscious, as do many people who oppose slavery today. They are very far from being perfect allies to people of color, but much to be preferred to people who support the injustice of slavery itself.
As for whether Howe’s lyrics reflect biblical postmillennialism, many postmillennialists (both in the 19th century and even today) frankly disagree with you. The song accurately reflects Protestant Christian doctrine of the era and was warmly received among Christians, despite your claims.
qatfish, still haven’t caught your name. . . .
The fact that Union soldiers invading the South stole so much Southern property and proceded to destroy what they couldn’t carry off, often leading to starvation in various areas, shows where the mindset of much of the Union military command was really at.
If you want to read a good book detailing the mindset of some Northern commanders I suggest a book called “Citizen Sherman” written by Michael Fellman back in 1995 I think it was. You can probably locate it on Amazon.com or somesuch place. Sherman plainly stated that he thought military dictatorship over the country was really the way to go. He had what I refer to as a Yankee/Marxist mindset when it come to other people’s property. This mindset was displayed all over the South when the Northern armies invaded. Interestingly enough, when Lee’s army invaded the North they were prohibited from destroying private property and very little of that actually happened.
Im sure many of these Northern generals took Ms. Howe’s hymn to heart and their actions displayed that abundantly.
Al Benson Jr.