"The Union Forever"

After 150 years, the government of South Carolina has finally recognized that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of slavery, racism, hatred, and treason.  Good for them.  Let’s hope that other southern states come to the same realization in the near future, and that our nation will fully understand that the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy, in the words of its vice president, Alexander Stephens, was the idea that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”  The creation of the Confederacy was an act of treason, committed for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.

We should also recognize that the Union stood in opposition to slavery, and explicitly for abolition as September 22, 1862, when President Lincoln issued the “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation,” which was made final the following New Year’s Day.

The Union soldiers understood that they were fighting to end slavery, and that the Confederates were fighting to preserve it.  This is evident from the Union battle songs, many of which refer specifically to the fight for freedom and against treason.

The most famous, of course, was Julia Ward Howe’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which included 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.

(Listen here, with specific the verse beginning at 2:35.)

There were many others with similar lyrics, including the “Battle Cry of Freedom,” with its chorus condemning treason:

The Union forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah!

Down with the traitors, up with the stars;

While we rally round the flag, boys, we rally once again,

Shouting the battle cry of freedom! 

And this verse condemning slavery: 

We will welcome to our numbers

The loyal true and brave,

Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom.

And although he may be poor

Not a man shall be a slave,

Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom!

 (Listen here.)

 Even the more martial and triumphant songs, as unpleasant as they are to hear in today’s South, included verses about freedom and treason, as in “Marching through Georgia,” with this chorus:

 Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.

 And this verse:

So we made a thoroughfare for freedom and her train,
Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain,
While we were marching through Georgia.

(Listen here.)

The Civil War took a terrible toll on both sides, with most of the destruction in the South.  But let us never forget that the war was occasioned by the southern insistence on preserving and expanding slavery, that the first shots were fired by the Confederacy against American troops at Ft. Sumter, and that the Union Army knew that it was fighting for freedom.

UPDATE:  Here is a verse from the more resolute, and less exultant, "We Are Coming Father Abraham,"

You have called us, and we're coming by Richmond's bloody tide,
To lay us down for freedom's sake, our brothers' bones beside;
Or from foul treason's savage group, to wrench the murderous blade;
And in the face of foreign foes its fragments to parade.
Six hundred thousand loyal men and true have gone before,
We are coming, Father Abraham, 300,000 more!

And here is a link to "The Girl I Left Behind," just to remind us of the soldiers' many sacrifices.

Comments

[AC]

This is entirely correct as to the Confederacy, but as to the Union, it is at best incomplete. Consider Lincoln's famous reply to Horace Greeley: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." A month after writing these words, Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, but the need he felt to write them underscores an important fact. A sizable fraction of the northern public (and the Union army) was unwilling to fight a war for the purpose of destroying slavery. At the outset, this fraction was probably a majority. It shrank over the course of the war but remained stubbornly substantial to the end. In time, of course, the same northern public also proved unwilling to fight for the rights--and in many cases the very lives--of the freed slaves. It is altogether fitting and proper to describe the Confederate battle flag as a "symbol of slavery, racism, hatred, and tyranny." It is also fitting and proper to celebrate the Union victory over these forces. But we should not forget how grudgingly the North embraced the anti-slavery cause, nor how much its victory left undone.

[Steve L.]

A 500 word blog post can not possibly give a "complete" account of the Civil War, which was a long and complex struggle. There was certainly division about war aims in the North.

Nonetheless, it was apparent early in the war, to Lincoln and others, that Union victory would mean the end of slavery -- even if that could not be made explicit until after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Thus, there were measures such as the Confiscation Acts and the welcoming of "contrabands" behind Union lines, which freed tens of thousands of slaves before the war ended. Once black troops were serving in the Union Army -- as many as 10% of the soldiers by war's end -- there was no possibility that slavery would survive a Union victory. Lincoln even refused to participate in prisoner exchanges so long as the Confederates refused to include black Union soldiers.

So yes, there was much reluctance to fight a war against slavery; but there is no doubt that it turned out to be precisely that -- a war against slavery.

And the troops sang, "Let us die to make men free."

[anon]

AC

Exactly. Remember what happened in NYC when the recruitment started: and upon whom the mobs wreaked their fury. Fast forward to Boston when busing was instituted. The racism in the North has always been as bad or worse than the South, witnessed by the ghettos into which black folks were forced to live by restrictive covenants, etc. And, as you say, Lincoln repeated expressed his "white supremacist" attitude, again and again stating that he would never allow the "negro" to vote, serve on juries, etc. Lincoln was for expulsion and racial cleansing.

The self satisfied posture adopted by the post above - part of the never ending "us" against "them" in the political culture of today - is so striking.

But what I first noticed is, this is the same critic who, not long ago, wrote a completely unfounded and muddled post in order to focus on Scalia's religion (I haven't seen him tell us how the religion of the three out of five justices who voted to define marriage as he likes affected or did not affect their votes).

Now, he lauds Julia Ward Howe’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic" as some exemplar of morality and justice in action.

Weird.

[anon]

Post

Lincoln would have totally rejected the Howe sentiment.

When asked, Lincoln refused to adopt the "onward Christian soldiers" mantra, praying only that we be on the side of deity, not the other way around.

The Howe sentiment would have offended him. A critic of the how religion affects public figures should take note of this.

[PaulB]

Steve,

In your quoting of lyrics from Battle Cry, you left out that the tune (as well as the words) written by George F. Root were so catchy that Schreiner and Barnes wrote a southern version that was extremely popular with Confderate soldiers. The chorus was as follows:

Our Dixie is forever, she's never at a loss.

Down with the eagle, up with the cross.

We'll rally round the bonny flag, we'll rally once again.

Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom.

When James McPherson wrote his extraordinary one volume history of the Civil War, he called it "Battle Cry of Freedom" because he saw the war as two societies who both viewed this terrible conflict as fundamentally about freedom as each saw that.

[Steve L.]

There was also a northern version of Dixie (author unknown):

Away down South in the land of traitors,
Rattlesnakes and alligators,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.
Where cotton's king and men are chattels,
Union boys will win the battles,
Right away, come away, right away, come away.
Then we'll all go down to Dixie.

Here is a version by Tennessee Ernie Ford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TW3CYryz7w

[anon]

It is so telling that we are now relitigating the Civil War!

Forget about binding up the nation's wounds; tear off the scabs and let's bathe in resentment and division!

This next election must be about what is important:

The Confederate Flag, every isolated case of police misconduct against a person of color (forget about such misconduct otherwise, nobody cares), and every other basis upon which we can whip up resentments and race hostility.

WE are the righteous! THEY are the evil ones! Why, they are CONFEDERATES! Dukes of Hazzard? EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!

(These are the same folks who used to rock out to "The Night They Drove Ol Dixie Down" ...)

Don't be fooled by cultural purging! It is and always has been the same.

(BTW, it was the GENEROUS and SINCERE reactions of the victims of the recent tragedy that motivated others to think hard about the effect that state endorsement of a symbol hurtful to others might represent. Why can't the self righteous and self interested among us understand that making political hay from their loss and grief is more than just offensive? If we could only join together instead of stoking the sort of sentiments represented by the hateful messages quoted above with such glee.)

[[M][@][c][K]]

The girl I left behind me is, incidentally, a very old air - as with Garryowen versions of the song were extant during the Napoleonic wars, the tune being probably older and designed for the harp and flute.

[Anon]

Any opinion that suggests that the people of either entire half of the nation were all fighting for one, specific reason--Hell, that they all believed in "their" side in the first place--is simplistic, pathetic, and naive. And, Steve, if you can't cover the shades and variegations of the issue in a 500 word blog post, perhaps you should reconsider posting it in the first place. As written, this comes across as little more than a poorly thought out screed against a group of people you obviously don't understand very well in the first place.

The Confederate battle flag represents some of the worst injustices of our country's past--not just slavery, but everything from Klan brutality to Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings. But, for many, it also represents a group of people who fought with courage and self-sacrifice for polities that--for a complicated web of reasons--they considered their own. While the latter point can't be allowed to white-wash or obscure the first, the earlier point can't justify the simplistic demonization of those who see the issue as more complex and personal than you.

[Barry]

"Forget about binding up the nation's wounds; tear off the scabs and let's bathe in resentment and division!"

The projection is strong with this Anon.

[anon]

To repeat

It was the GENEROUS and SINCERE reactions of the victims of the recent tragedy that motivated others to think hard about the effect that state endorsement of a symbol hurtful to others might represent. Why can't the self righteous and self interested among us understand that making political hay from their loss and grief is more than just offensive?

That is not, as you say Barry, bathing in divisiveness. There are very different approaches to appreciation of the sensibilities of the aggrieved: one seeks to, as one comment stated above, demonize a political enemy and galvanize support for identity political tactics; the other seeks to resolve, in understanding, the differences and reach out to form consensus solutions. We just witnessed the latter in action. How different from the sniping post above!

Lincoln favored the latter approach; most political operatives and their sympathizers in the current environment, who simply attack the "other team" relentlessly to galvanize support, fall into the former category.

[AGR]

Lincoln was operating within the time of war, and trying to bring the South to heel using a combination of force and conciliation. Who knows how he would have responded when he observed the torrent of violence that white southerners unleashed upon the freedmen, people they considered their "lost property" or property that (whom?) they would never get to possess. He would not be Lincoln if he just said everyone should pray about it and just forgive, which is what blacks are asked to do all the time.

[anon]

AGR

Once again, you are relitigating and opening old wounds.

My goodness, have you never read the history? Ever heard of Andrew Johnson?

[AGR]

Yes. I have heard of Andrew Johnson...

[Alexander Tsesis]

Steve,

Thanks for this post. Here's Ronnie Gilbert (of the Weavers fame) singing a great 1860 Lincoln campaign song from 1860: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxWwDgOj0oE. She's modified the words a bit from the original, but the anti-slavery and anti-racist spirit comes through clearly.

Some years ago, I looked into this rendition a bit more fully and found that Gilbert's wonderful rendition is actually a combination of two different songs: One is the Hutchinson Family Singer's "Lincoln and Liberty", which in fact was a campaign song in 1860, and the other a song out of the 1840s called variously the "Liberty Ball", "Freeman's Song", and the "Agrarian Ball". Jesse Hutchinson, a member of the singing ensemble, is credited with modifying the latter, but I'm not sure in what year.

Take a look at this beautiful songster: Hutchinson's Republican Songster at https://books.google.com/books?id=Gwo6AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=%22Hutchinson%27s+Republican+Songster%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=igCgVcC5Os2qyAS07ZjQCA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=slave&f=false. This too clearly shows that many of those who supported Lincoln's candidacy in 1860 were unequivocally anti-slavery. The publication date is right in the title and the copyright date: One of the lines of "Lincoln and Liberty" is: "Our David's good sling is unerring,/The Slaveocrats' giant he slew;/Then shout for the Freedom-preferring--/For Lincoln and Liberty too!" See https://books.google.com/books?id=Gwo6AAAAIAAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP3&dq=Hutchinson%27s+Republican+Songster&source=bl&ots=6-kX4EpV6N&sig=iuwyCzqN3LWsWZBLpIHLtn-J_WA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oQegVeqtLdSmyASu3LzYDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Hutchinson%27s%20Republican%20Songster&f=false. Explains a little more why South Carolina was so worried with him coming to office-Lincoln's thoughts were still formative, he was nowhere near as militant as the Hutchinson singers, but abolitionists (moderate and radical, especially Frederick Douglass and Charles Sumner) knew what direction they wanted to push him. Here are lines from "Lincoln and Victory!": "… Come from your forest-clad mountains/Come from the fields of your tillage, Come from city and village--/Join the great host of the free!...Echo from ocean to ocean,/ Lincoln and Victory!/ Far from the West rolls the thunder,/The tumult of battle is raging,/Where the sons of Freedom are waging/Warfare with Slavery!" Here's another electronic copy of the same book: https://archive.org/details/hutchinsonsrepub00hutc.

On the Confederate symbol point, you might be interested in an article I wrote years ago arguing that the Confederate flag and other such momentums are badges of slavery and that the federal government can ban them pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1598483.

Alex

[Cent Rieker]

Dear anon,
Eff the hurt feelings of those whose feelings are hurt and need bandages to wipe the boo books from those some of us to wish to "demonize a political enemy." They are!! They think that men roamed the planet with dinosaurs! They think that abstinence works (despite the region then live in having a disproportionately higher than average teen birth rate). They talk a big game about protecting the border (is there a bigger group of losers than those WHITE people with the 'Southern Lives Matters') when they can't even properly speak the language!!! I have had it with the South. We need to relitigate this now, because it wasn't properly settled the way it should've been. Look at Germany- we don't see people in Bavaria cry about the need to respect about a heritage and blah blah blah the way we do. Next time Mississippi or Texas wants to secede, I say good riddance!!

[anon]

For those who believe this sort of post, and the thinking behind it, brings out the best in America: see, above.

This is what you are associating yourselves with. This is what you are fomenting. This is the America YOU are creating.

Hope you like the angry mob. Things generally get SOOOO much better when we approach issues in the manner you seem to prefer.

[AGR]

There is no need to "re-litigate" anything. The issue has been settled. The Union is perpetual. The United States cannot permit its citizens to be "voted" or forced out of their rights, off their land--out of citizenship altogether. Union soldiers died fighting for this principle.We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by pretending that the people they vanquished were not vanquished, and really had an equally just cause. They did not. Read the founding documents of the Confederacy and the secession statements and see the answer. In no other wars do we spend time trying to divine the causes of war by looking to individual soldiers' thoughts and feelings. Those are seen as interesting additions to the discussion of larger societal forces at work. The discussion of individual motivations obscures talk of the foundations of southern society, as expressed in the documents they chose to live by. Americans are taught the words of the Constitution and the Declaration. We see our soldiers as fighting to uphold those values. Let's make the Confederate Constitution, the secession resolutions, and the Cornerstone speech-- which flatly rejects the language in the Declaration about the equality of mankind-- known to Americans, too.

[anon]

AGR

What a muddle!

"In no other wars do we spend time trying to divine the causes of war by looking to individual soldiers' thoughts and feelings."

And, yet, that is EXACTLY what you seem to support! ANd, worse, you are ignoring the use to which these "remembrances" are being put. This sort of purging is not historically atypical. This is a campaign to galvanize racial divisions for political ends.

You are so right. The Civil War is OVER. Yes, folks should know history. The PBS series was a good example of a balanced and comprehensive lesson. There just aren't many who believe in slavery or in secession or in Jim Crow or any of it. South Carolina has proved that, and the reactions of the victims of a tragedy inspired, rather than divided.

And, as for racism, it is just as bad in the North as everywhere else, and always was. But, getting better all the time. Just like everywhere else. So, give everybody a break from your pontificating about the "Union." Geez. What century are you living in?

Think about the costs that the approach that posts like the one above, and your sentiments, inspire! Do you support the hate filled rants that such "remembrance" inspires? see, above