Let Us Die To Make Men Free

[unionblue]

I have often heard the argument that most Union soldiers fought only to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves.

Well, for your consideration, the following was taken from an article in magazine, "The American Enterprise (TAE)". The article is entiltled, Let Us Die To Make Men Free, by Harvey Rollins, a Mississippi native and a retired employee of the US Army, and Karina Rollins, his daughter and a TAE senior editor. The article follows:

The soldiers of the Union Army, one bit of conventional wisdom has it, fought strictly to preserve the Union, and were unconcerned with freeing the slaves. A dismayingly large number of people have accepted the fiction that America's ferocious Civil War was fought not over human liberty, but over "states rights." The rights in question, of course, were to own human beings as property.

So what was the average Union soldier, ready to sacrifice his life in battle, fighting for? One obvious test is to look at what the soldiers did to boost their morale in the wretched moments of wartime. Throughout history, soldiers have sung motivational songs to sustain their spirits, and so it was in the Civil War. The most popular song of the Army of the Potomac throughout the war was "John Brown's Body," an unrefined but fervent tribute to the radical abolitionist who was hanged for his attack on Harper's Ferry. "John Brown died that the slave might be free/But his soul is marching on!" the soldiers shouted out. "Glory, Glory Hallelujah" went the exhilarating chorus.

In 1861, the first year of the war, Julia Ward Howe, wife of Northern abolitionist and journalist S.G. Howe, made her first trip to the nation's capitol. While returning from a military review, she observed a procession of soldiers singing the John Brown song. Her friend, the Reverend James Freeman Clarke, suggested she write better words for the tune. Her result, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1862.

Howe kept the rousing "Glory, Glory Hallelujah" but transformed the anti-slavery message from John Brown's mission to a mission of God: "mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord," she begins. She ends with, "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." President Lincoln, upon first hearing the song performed in 1863, had only three words: "Sing it again." It soon became the unoffical anthem of the North. The Union troops, for their part, continued to sing the less poetic but even more explicitly anti-slavery words of "John Brown" as they marched.

The importance of anti-slavery songs in sustaining Union soldiers was appreciated even by Southerners. Just after Lee's surrender in 1865, a Confederate major described hearing Union troops sing "The Battle Cry of Freedom" ("...altho' they may be poor, not a man shall be a slave..."). "I shall never forget the first time I heard it. 'Twas a nasty night....and raining. I was on picket, when some fellow on the other side struck up a song, and others joined in the chorus until it seemed to me the whole Yankee army was singing. I am not naturally superstitous, but I tell you that song sounded like the knell of doom."

During the war, the singing Hutchinson Family toured Union camps and hospitals. Lincoln, like most Northerners, appreciated them greatly, even inviting them to sing at the White House. Among their anti-slavery songs, popular with the troops, was John Greenleaf Whitter's "Hymn of Liberty," with this pull-no-punches condemnation of the South's "domestic institutions": "What gives the wheat fields blades of steel?/What points the rebel cannon?/...What whets the knife for the Union's life?/Hark to the answer: slavery."

When the Hutchinsons sang the John Brown song, they were cheered madly by the soldiers. A private from the 48th MA wrote home that soldiers' cheers reflected "a true appreciation of the issues involved; they were receiving an inspiration which would lead them to downright victory...which would leave of slavery nothing but its scars and shame and putrid corpse."

This was one cry among many. "Letters of Union soldiers," records historian Victor Davis Hanson in "The Soul of Battle", show that by 1864 a majority clearly knew that their cause was about freeing slaves and they heartily approved of it. Such sentiments grew, rather than diminished, as the war wore on and Northerners entered the South."

One a 43-year-old Michigan farmer who had already lost a stepson in the war wrote to his wife from Atlanta in 1864, as part of Sherman's army, that "The more I learn of the cursed institution of slavery, the more I feel willing to endure for its final destruction...The whole country will undergo a change for the better...Abolishing slavery will dignify labor...Let Christians use all their influence to have justice done to the black man." He was killed a short while after.

It's true: The boys in blue were willing to "die to make men free." Glory hallelujah.

What do you all think of this article?

Awaiting your comments,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Revisionist History... There is too much evidence to the contrary. While many men certainly did enlist in the Union Army to free slaves, many would become officers because they came from the social elite... The majority could have cared less and there were several REGIMENTS on the brink of mutiny after the Emancipation Proclomation. The general ill feeling toward Black Men eased considerably after "Colored Troops" began to see combat and proved their worth. But the general treatment of "Contrabands" by the union Army in general was quite poor and in some cases quite shameful.

[blue_zouave]

Hey, could somebody please define "revisionist history" for a poor Zouave? It's flung freely as an insult at people who support the Union. I just wanna know what you mean.

[sean_harris]

Armies have always sang songs. From what I recall both sides sang several of the same songs. Just because a toon is catchy does not mean people believe in or listen to the true meaning of the words.

I remember being forced to sing a catchy little toon called, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and "John Brown" in '91 during Marine bootcamp. It sure did not make me ready to jump up and free slaves or "jian the cavalry" for my sweatheart. As I recall we also sang several other catchy little period pieces, on the march, some changed, some not. I think they are motivation however, not for the reason stated. lol!

Revisionist history? Poor Zou, lol!!! What? Sounds like the same thing every Southern person says for the same reason.

[johan_steele]

Revisionist History = rewritting history to suit ones own ends or a popular trend. Another way of saying it might be accepting all facts that agree with a statement but ignoring all that might contradict that statement.

An example would be a fairly recent literary academic work that claimed that firearms had no real part in America's early history... apparently that proffessor ignored how many Union Soldiers took their firearms home with them after the war. He was given several prizes and lauded by the liberal left... a few months later his prizes were stripped from him and he was dismissed from his university position for fraudulant research.

Another example would be the idea that the fighting against the American Indian was completely one sided and the "poor Indians" were nothing but innocent victims. The fact that this was a "no quarter given and none asked" type of conflict is never mentioned.

Zou and Neil... no insult was intended... I too view the article as interesting... I don't agree with it and find it amusing that anyone could be thought of as credible when citing their proof as only a couple songs... After all Dixie was written by a northerner... I assure you the man was quite irritated to find it all but the national anthem of the CSA a few years later. I also know that quite a few Union Soldiers visited brothels at every available opportunity, that doesn't mean they were fighting for the institution of prostitution.

"John Browns Body" was a cathy toon that the men liked, Ms Howe was asked to give the tune some more respectable lyrics... which she did. Cumberland Gap, When Johnny Comes Marching Home, Home Sweet Home, Marching Through Georgia, Faded Coat of Blue and Goober Peas were also very popular Union Army songs but they had nothing to do with slavery. Saying that songs can derive the motivation of soldiers... I hope nobody listens to the music played in a modern US Army barracks (ok a couple years ago). The men in my barracks played LL Cool J, MC Hammer, ACDC, Metallica, Madonna, Kenny Rogers and assorted other musicians. I sure hope to God no future historian judges our motives by that music.

Slavery was not the primary issue, there is no doubt it was an issue but it was not the primary one.

[blue_zouave]

Oh, OK, I see. Usually when is see it used, it's used as an insult because the information posted does not match the beliefs of the person reading it.

There is such a thing as historiography. Nobody can see the past except through the filter of their own day.

And all you did was give your opinion, Sean H., without citations. Oh my heck, I sound like Connie. But I'd be really interested to know where you got your information.

Zou

[unionblue]

Shane, I take no offense at your reply to my thread, I welcome it. This is what is so great about this board, getting viewpoints from all over the compass. Please feel free and we all seek knowledge and truth on this board.

Sean, I too was in the military and sang many a cadence during those long marches, both in basic and with the 10th Mountain Division. A lot of the songs were designed to take your mind off your poor feet during the really long marches!

BUT, I think it would be wrong to consider that all songs used in any conflict as not reflecting some of the attitude of the soldiers and civilians involved. WWII, Praise the Lord and Pass the ammunition? Sometimes when I hear the song, I'm proud to be an American, the tears spring to my eyes and I am really glad to be an American.

I wonder if we are being to quick to judge the effect and meaning of the songs of the period because we are just so used to hearing the same explanations over and over again?

Unionblue

I suppose you can see it one way but they made sure to do the same things eh?
They will resort to the very thing they claim to abhor. interesting distinction.

Executive Mansion, Washington D.C July 30. 1863

It is the duty of every government to give protection to its citizens, of whatever class, color, or condition, and especially to those who are duly organized as soldiers in the public service. The law of nations and the usages and customs of war as carried on by civilized powers, permit no distinction as to color in the treatment of prisoners of war as public enemies. To sell or enslave any captured person, on account of his color, and for no offence against the laws of war, is a relapse into barbarism and a crime against the civilization of the age.

The government of the United States will give the same protection to all its soldiers, and if the enemy shall sell or enslave anyone because of his color, the offense shall be punished by retaliation upon the enemy's prisoners in our possession.

It is therefore ordered that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; and for every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

[unionblue]

Aphillbilly, your point is what? The order that you have posted was in reaction to Confederate soldiers taking black soldiers and either re-enslaving them or treating them badly for the sake of their color, is that correct? Does this relate to the article about songs?

Don't mean to be thick here, just trying to see where you are coming from.

Unionblue

[tulip]

PC and revisionsism are the newest weapons in the arsenal for achieving dismissal and minimization. The easiest way to eliminate a discomfort is to tag it with revisionism rather than developed argument based on solid facts. Seems like sourcing and annotation are just no longer trendy. Why bother when PC will do?