Oh my here we go again—-Why Two Minutes of Lost Footage From The Civil War Are So Important | Student of the American Civil War (wordpress.com)

Mackey, thinks he has found a smoking gun to prove once and for all times that the War of Yankee Aggression was all about slavery. This time he wants to use an article that is found here—‘The Civil War’ Documentary 25 Years Later | Time

In this article Shelby Foote is quoted as saying– The answer Burns gets is both complex and troubling. “There are so many reasons that can be assigned after the fact,” Foote says, “slavery being the main one, and that’s Lincoln’s identification of the problem.” And with that one sentence, in those few words, a glimpse of America’s darker side showed itself—a side that has since been exposed to the light.

Well that is fine and I would believe it if there were some sources listed to back up this statement, there is not so I take it as just two men talking, expressing their opinions if you will.

Now I have posted many past articles, using documents of the period to prove that slavery had nothing to do with the start of the war. You are free to research these articles and point out any thing that is incorrect. Mackey believes otherwise, but the big difference is he never posts anything to support his view. Why? because it is faulty, a lie. He cannot found the documents, try as he may that proves his point.

Mackey goes on to try and make us believe the Secession Documents are some sort of war declaration or that they represent the entire Confederacy. Nothing is farter from the truth. Not one of these documents mentions going to war. While all 4 FOUR do mention this is not the only reason for secession. and it is only 4 out of thirteen states, not hardly the majority of the Confederacy. Another lie being promoted by Mackey.

I do however, agree with Mackey on being cautious of quoting Foote or any historian. I say do the research yourself, find the documents and read them yourself, that is the only way you will know.

Where is the Intellectual Ammunition?

Image from:https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/where-is-the-intellectual-ammunition/

Above we see an image of several books recommended by Al Mackey that, in his opinion will expose the “CONFEDERATE LIE.”

Notice that Mackey doesn’t define exactly what the “Confederate Lie” is, so in that respect it is hard to counter his false narrative. I have asked Mackey several times to openly tell us what exactly he is talking about , maybe even meet me in a debate. He knows he cannot win, so he refuses to answer.

At any rate back to these books, honestly I haven’t read any of them, have no desire to read any of them. I mean really, how can you believe anything in any book that is promoted by someone who on a nearly daily basis promotes hate, bias, lies and division and constantly bashes the Confederacy? Tell me honestly.

Now if you really want to get the truth of the start of the war, and since we are not informed of the big “CONFEDERATE LIE”, I suggest you read Mr. Buchanan’s administration On The Eve of the War. This book is easily found online.

Also go to any website that has the OP’s– Official Records of The War of Rebellion Myself I like to use this website for ease of searching— https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records

On this blog I would suggest you look up the speeches of Abe Lincoln.These will give you a good idea about the view Lincoln had of slavery and Negroes.

Also read the Interview of Jefferson Davis with James Gilmore in the
The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 14, 1864. Davis tell Gilmore this—

“I know. You would deny to us what you exact for yourselves, — the right of self-government.”

“No, Sir,” I remarked. “We would deny you no natural right. But we think Union essential to peace; and, Mr. Davis, could two people, with the same language, separated by only an imaginary line, live at peace with each other? Would not disputes constantly arise, and cause almost constant war between them? ”

“Undoubtedly,-with this generation. You have sown such bitterness at the South, you have put such an ocean of blood between the two sections, that I despair of seeing any harmony in my time. Our children may forget this war, but we cannot.”

“I think the bitterness you speak of, Sir,” said the Colonel, “does not really exist. We meet and talk here as friends; our soldiers meet and fraternize with each other; and I feel sure, that, if the Union were restored, a more friendly feeling would arise between us than has ever existed. The war has made us know and respect each other better than before. This is the view of very many Southern men ; I have had it from many of them, —- your leading citizens.”

“They are mistaken,” replied Mr. Davis. “ They do not understand Southern sentiment. How can we feel any thing but bitterness towards men who deny us our rights? If you enter my house and drive me out of it, am I not your natural enemy?”

“You put the case too strongly. But we cannot fight forever; the war must end at some time; we must finally agree upon something; can we not agree now, and stop this frightful carnage? We are both Christian men, Mr. Davis. Can you, as a Christian man, leave untried any means that may lead to peace? ”

“No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands,—I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us gov

1864.] 0ur Visit to Richmond. 379

ern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self – government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,–and that, or extermination, we will have.”

My opinion is this, anyone is welcome to define the big “CONFEDERATE LIE.”
Once that is done give me some credible sources, preferably documents of the period proving this point. I am not interested in what a bunch of biased bigoted hate filled so called historians have to say. Finally meet me in an open debates to prove that point.


Who Are Statue Vandals Really Targeting?

Reposted from: https://civilwarchat.wordpress.com/2021/10/05/who-are-statue-critics-really-targeting/

(October 5, 2021) The routine removal of Confederate statues signifies a new stage in the evolution of political progressives. Their vision for a new order that can provide social justice for the so-called oppressed is becoming a secular religion. Assaults on statues are symptomatic that the new faith is working to destroy traditional values. The birth of a new religion—even a secular one—is always a dangerous time. Immature faiths tend toward totalitarian treatment of unbelievers while they fight among themselves over arcane points to settle upon a canonical creed.

As they work-out their victimology creed, Confederate statues serve as handy symbols where they can physically act out their hatred for the past. Under the influence of corrupted historian-activists, progressives imagine that Robert E. Lee’s recently removed statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond was erected to celebrate White Supremacy. In truth, it was put there to honor the leadership he provided to the Army of Northern Virginia, which kept the Union armies at bay for four years against long odds. Unlike other Southern armies Lee’s was composed of soldiers from every Confederate state.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note blacks proudly standing in the foreground
Starting in 1874—four years after Lee died—it took sixteen years of collecting donations from all Southern states before the required $52,000 was raised. Unlike at removal last month, no tax dollars were used to erect it. A crowd of 150,000, including blacks, attended the statue’s unveiling in 1890. Despite the city’s smaller population 131 years ago, that crowd was about one hundred times larger than the one that cheered its destruction last month. Given that nearly half of Richmond’s 225,000 population is black, last month’s small crowd suggests that the removal and defacement of Confederate statues is not a priority for most blacks. It’s primarily done to provide virtue-signaling opportunities for Democrat politicians like Governor Ralph Northam. An ephemeral photo-op for any politician is an inexcusable reason for destroying a 131-year-old statue erected with funds provided by thousands of small donations when the South’s per capita income was half the national average. Northam says the statue does not represent the values of today’s Virginians. If that were so, why was the crowd at the removal so small?

Perhaps a Democrat Georgia legislator’s reaction to a proposal that would place a statue of Georgia-born-and-raised Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the state Capitol grounds shows that political conservatives are the true targets of those tearing down Confederate statues. When asked her opinion about the proposal, state Representative Donna McLeod said, “I’d rather them keep a Confederate monument than [erect] a statue of Clarence Thomas. That’s how much I don’t like the idea.” If you are a political conservative with no connection to Confederate Heritage, you may think the statue destroyers are targeting a supposedly immoral dead civilization whereas McLeod’s remark reveals the true target is you. In short, the whole destroy-Confederate-statues movement is a dreadful fraud that is divisive instead of inclusive as its proponents falsely claim.

(Battle Hymn) What It Really Means

What It Really Means
by Michael Dan Jones

One of the most enduring traditional American hymns and patriotic songs is Julia Ward Howe’s “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It is a staple with many Christian church choirs and hardly a patriotic holiday passes without this song being sung and played at ceremonies nationwide. But is “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” truly appropriate for religious hymnals and patriotic ceremonies? Who was the author? What motivated and inspired her? What message was she trying to convey? What do the words mean? What meaning do they have for us today?
The author, Julia Ward Howe, was born in 1819 in New York City. She married a prominent physician, Dr. Samuel Howe Gridley (1801-1876) in 1843 and they lived in Boston, Mass., where they raised five children. She was a much celebrated author, a tireless supporter of the anti-slavery movement, preached in Unitarian Churches, and was a zealous worker for the advancement of women, prison reform, world peace and other humanitarian movements. She died October 17, 1910 at her summer home in Oak Glen, Rhode Island.

News reporters of her day delighted in describing this unusual woman. She was diminutive in stature, barely over five feet; invariably wearing a white trimmed, black dress and lace cap and had the habit of peering over her silver-rimmed glasses as she read her lecture in a crisp Boston-Yankee accent.

But her literary works had dark themes, such as murder, suicide and betrayal, perhaps reflecting her own unhappy marriage with her domineering and unfaithful husband. Her church, the Unitarian Church, although it claimed to be Christian, denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

And although she was devoted to the anti-slavery movement, like many other Northern radicals of her time, her own words reveal her to be a hypocrite on the subject of race. Julia Ward Howe believed and wrote the “ideal negro” would be one “refined by white culture, elevated by white blood.” She also wrote “the negro among negroes, is coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to any in the world….He must go to school to the white race and his discipline must be long and laborious.” Her own disgusting words expose the kind of hypocrisy that was rampant in the abolitionist movement.
Mrs. Howe and her husband, Samuel Gridley Howe, were supporters of the most radical and violent wing of the anti-slavery movement. These “disunion abolitionists” wanted to tear apart the American republic of sovereign, independent states, and reconstruct it along their own radical political, cultural and religious ideals. History records only how too well they succeeded with their treason.
Her husband and her pastor, Unitarian Rev. Theodore Parker, were conspirators in the treasonous group known as “The Secret Six.” These wealthy Northeasterners financially supported terrorist and murderer John Brown in his insane Harpers Ferry raid, and advocated slave rebellion that would destroy the original American republic.

Brown’s Anti-Southern terror campaign started in Kansas in the mid-1850’s. There, on May 23, 1856 Brown and his murderous band descended on a settlement of Southerners at Pottawatomie Creek. They carried with them newly sharpened swords, an image that played a prominent part in Mrs. Howe’s song (her hero and his fellow terrorists literally hacked to death five innocent men). Northern historians try to excuse this crime by saying Brown was exacting revenge for atrocities committed by pro-slavery “Border Ruffians.” This is a lie!

The first three victims, James P. Doyle and his sons, Drury and William, were Catholics from Tennessee who moved to Kansas to get away from slavery. They never had a thing to do with the institution. But because they spoke with a Southern drawl, and possibly because they were Catholic, Brown marched them to a clearing where their heads were split open with the sharpened swords. Drury’s arms were chopped off. Mrs. Doyle was later asked why her husband and sons had been so brutally murdered. She replied, “just because we were Southern people, I reckon.”
The other victims of Brown’s murderous rampage were Southern settlers Allen Wilkinson, executed while his wife and children stood by in horror, and William Sherman, whose mutilated body was found floating in the creek with his left hand hanging by a strand of skin and his skull split open with “some of his brains” washed away.

When she got word of the massacre, Julia Ward Howe’s own words reveal her to have been perversely thrilled and inspired by this grisly crime. The “terrible swift sword” in her song was terrible indeed, but hardly reflecting Christian values. Mrs. Howe and Brown mutually admired one another, as their own words demonstrate. Mrs. Howe, wrote Brown, was “a Puritan of Puritans, forceful, concentrated, and self-contained.” Brown wrote of Mrs. Howe in a letter to a friend, that she was “a defiant little woman” and that her personality was “all flash and fire.” After the failure of Brown’s bloody raid on Harpers Ferry, her husband, who was deeply involved in the treasonous conspiracy, like a coward in the night, fled to Canada until he was assured he was safe from prosecution in Massachusetts.

Mrs. Howe, in a letter to her sister at the time, made it clear she was in complete sympathy with the attempt to start a slave rebellion in the South, and tear the nation apart. She wrote, “ I have just been to church and heard [James Freeman] Clarke (another Unitarian minister) preach about John Brown, whom God bless, and will bless! I am much too dull to write anything good about him, but shall say something at the end of my book on Cuba, whereof I am at present correcting the proof-sheets. I went to see his poor wife, who passed through here some days since. We shed tears together and embraced at parting, poor soul… [Brown’s] attempt I must judge insane but the spirit heretic. I should be glad to be as sure of heaven as that old man may be, following right in the spirit and footsteps of the old martyrs, girding on his sword for the weak and oppressed. His death will be holy and glorious–the new saint awaiting his martyrdom, and who, if he shall suffer [execution], will make the gallows glorious like the cross.”

What “martyrs” could Mrs. Howe have been speaking of in her letter? Surely she could not mean the early Christian martyrs who were slain in many perverse, cruel and cold-blooded ways by the ancient Romans, just as her hero, John Brown, slew the Southern martyrs in Kansas. Her fascination with his sword is also revealed in the letter. This grotesque and warped view of Christian values is reflected in her violent and bloody war song.

Here we have the author of the much revered “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” condoning murder and treason by a ruthless and brutal killer. Her dark fascination with Brown’s bloody sword and the killer’s unbridled violence seemed to thrill the diminutive author. Clearly, the seeds of inspiration for her “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” had been planted in the poisonous soil of murder, rebellion and treason.

But what was the final inspiration for the famous lyrics? In November 1861, after the start of the tragic war that the Howe’s had for so long worked to instigate, a party which included the Unitarian Rev. James F. Clarke and Mrs. Howe, visited an outpost of the invading Union troops in Northern Virginia. However an unexpected Confederate attack cancelled the review. Mrs. Howe and her party were waiting in a buggy while Northern troops came marching by, returning from the skirmish. The camp visitors heard the Yankees merrily singing an obscene version of “John Brown’s Body.”
When the party returned to Washington, D.C., the Rev. Clarke asked Mrs. Howe if she could supply more dignified words for the popular tune. So, inspired by the memory of her late, “martyred hero” John Brown, and the skirmish that so rudely interrupted her review of her beloved invading Northern vandals, she wrote the words for the famous Anti-Southern abolitionist anthem, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” by candlelight in the middle of the night at the Willard Hotel.

James T. Fields, the editor of the Atlantic Monthly, accepted the song and published it as a poem in the February 1862 issue. This bloody, hate-filled song has been marching on ever since. The “hymn” sung by so many church and school choirs, was inspired not by the Bible or a stirring religious sermon, but by a dastardly killer, John Brown, and by the march of Northern invaders trampling over Southern soil, Southern lives and Southern rights, in quest of subjugating or killing the Southern people. And what horrible crime was the South guilty of to warrant its extermination?

The people of the South were guilty only of wanting independence for a government of their own choosing, a pro-Christian, God-based government that safeguarded states’ rights, individual liberty and put strict limits on the national government. This was the type of government the founders established in 1776, and the South was trying to preserve it as handed to them.
It was Abraham Lincoln, who is said to have cried the first time he heard the abolitionist war song, and radicals like Mrs. Howe who were the real revolutionaries. It was their forces who, by brute force of arms, destroyed the original voluntary union of sovereign, independent states at the cost of 620,000 dead Americans, and changed the nations into an involuntary union of defeated, militarily occupied, captive states.

In 1863, Mrs. Howe recited, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” at a gathering of fanatical abolitionists. One of those who saw and heard her commented that she had a “weird penetrating voice.” Considering the bloody, ungodly history of her war song, what a chilling experience that must have been.

In summary, here is a “hymn” celebrating the killing of Southerners on Southern soil, written by someone involved in the most radical causes or her day, who supported the most extreme and violent response to the South, who wrote the song after being inspired by the murderous career of John Brown and her northern vandal invaders of the South. Whenever “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is played, five innocent men hacked to death by the “terrible swift sword” of John Brown should be remembered. It is also a dirge for the 620,000 Americans who died in the War for Southern Independence and which war transformed America into a despotic centralized state with practically unlimited powers.

What meaning does the song have for the South today?

It is, in effect, a “stealth” heritage attack. It is conditioning Southerners to accept the Yankee myth of history: that their Confederate ancestor’s were wrong, and their Northern “betters” were right and they should be glad 260,000 Southrons were slaughtered in the War for Southern Independence. The message of the song is, “Believe in Mrs. Howe’s almighty centralized government to tell you what is right and what is wrong.” Don’t listen to the founders of 1776 or 1861, is the message of this hymn. Yes, Mrs. Howe’s abolitionist hymn is still doing her work, quietly and covertly, of destroying Southern heritage by conditioning Southerners to accept her fanatically leftist cultural and religious philosophy.

How ironic that such a joyous traditional Southern song as “Dixie” is now all but banned throughout the South, while a vicious Anti-Southern war song such as “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is sung by churches and patriotic ceremonies all over the Confederate states.

What meaning does it have for the Church?

Did Jesus Christ teach that God is a vengeance seeking, sword-wielding maniac that slaughters innocents and tramples people under His wrathful feet, as Mrs. Howe’s violent and bloody lyrics would have you believe? No, such lyrics don’t fit in with any Christian liturgy I’m familiar with. They do fit in the theology of radical egalitarianism which says everyone must be equal in all aspects of life, or the full force and power of the federal government will destroy you. It also fits in the philosophy of giving to the government god-like powers to declare a whole segment of humanity as non-persons, such as the unborn, who can then be legally slaughtered by the millions at the whim of the mother and abortionist.

If Americans truly care about individual liberty, limited, constitutional government, and the sacred right of self-government of the people in their assembled states, then all such false icons as “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” must be exposed and rejected.

The Truth About “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

The Truth About “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

Kenneth J. Morgan – May 2008

Julia Ward Howe

“Battle Hymn of the Republic” was written by Julia Ward Howe and is included in many hymnals used by Bible-believing churches. Christian congregations sing this song, feeling very patriotic, without knowing what the song means, why it was written, or anything about Julia Howe.

The fact is that this song was not written to praise God or Jesus. It was not even written within the framework of historical Christianity. Julia Ward Howe was a Unitarian and as such did not believe in the Trinity or the deity of Christ. She even preached occasionally in Unitarian pulpits.

Why “Battle Hymn of the Republic” Was Written

Julia Howe was a social activist and an ardent Abolitionist. Together with her husband, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, they edited the Boston Commonwealth, a prominent anti-slavery paper, to which she also contributed articles, essays, and poems.

In November of 1861, Samuel and Julia Howe were invited to Washington by President Lincoln, where they toured a number of Union Army camps along the Potomac. While visiting these camps, they heard the soldiers singing a song well-known in both the North and the South, “John Brown’s Body Lies a’Mouldering in His Grave.” The tune, written by a Southerner named John W. Staffe in 1855, had had many different lyrics set to it even before “John Brown’s Body,” but those were the words heard by Mrs. Howe on the tour. John Brown, of course, was a radical Abolitionist whom Mrs. Howe admired and who had been hung for his raid on the Harper’s Ferry arsenal in 1859 to secure weapons to arm slaves in Virginia for revolt.

Reverend James Freeman Clarke, a Unitarian minister and fellow Abolitionist, was another member of the tour. Being familiar with Mrs. Howe’s poems, he urged her to write a new song fitting that tune for the War effort to replace “John Brown’s Body.” She did so that very night. Staying at the Willard Hotel in Washington on the night of November 18, 1861, Howe awoke with the words of the song in her mind and in near darkness wrote down the verses. She called the result “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It was first published in February, 1862, in the Atlantic Monthly.

Therefore, the purpose of this song was not to praise God or to give testimony to his great works or the blessings he bestows on Christians. It was written to stir the emotions of the Union troops and support the War Against the Southern Confederacy. In this regard, the song was quite successful and immediately became popular with the soldiers.

The Meaning of “Battle Hymn of the Republic”

Suppose we examine the verses of the song and determine what Julia Ward Howe was really saying.

Verse 1

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.

Mrs. Howe’s eyes saw nothing of “the coming of the Lord” because the Lord had not come. As a Unitarian in Boston in 1861, she probably did not even believe in the physical, bodily return of Christ to this earth. This was her “interpretation” of the second advent: the Union army pouring out divine grapes of wrath on the Confederacy.

Verse 2

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.

The “hundred circling camps” were the Union Army camps that Mrs. Howe toured at President Lincoln’s invitation. She actually imagined the watch-fires of the camps to be altars built to God! “By the dim and flaring lamps” in the camps, she was able to read God’s “righteous sentence” on the South.

Verse 3

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 is the verse conveniently left out of every hymnal that prints “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

According to Mrs. Howe, the “fiery gospel” is written and spread by “burnished rows of steel”–by rifles and bayonets. What “gospel” is it to which she refers? Not the New Testament Gospel.

The word “contemner” is not often used today. It means one who commits contempt. The verb “contemn” means to view or regard with disdain, scorn, or contempt; to despise.

The Southern Confederacy is here viewed as having contempt for God. Therefore, to the extent that the Union Army deals with God’s contemners in the South, to that same extent, according Mrs. Howe, God will shed his grace on the Northern soldiers. What astonishing audacity!

But Mrs. Howe is still not through. Here the Southern Confederacy is actually cast in the roll of Satan himself. The prediction of Christ crushing Satan in Genesis 3:15 thus finds its fulfillment in the North crushing the South!

Verse 4

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.

Here Mrs. Howe depicts the choice made by her contemporaries between the cause of the North and the cause of the South as God “sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat.” Of course, God was not then, and is not now, sitting on his judgment seat “sifting” anyone. The judgment seat of God, like the bodily return of Christ to this earth, is an eschatological event. But even apart from that, the fact is that the Southern Army, not the Northern Army, had devout and Godly men such as Lee and Jackson as its leaders. They did not allow their soldiers to curse, they held Sunday services, and they held prayer meetings in their camps. Compare their lives with the likes of Grant and Sherman.

Verse 5

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.

Here we see the true purpose of this song: “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” “Battle Hymn of the Republic” was written to inspire the Union soldiers who were facing death in their effort to prosecute Lincoln’s war of aggression against the Southern Confederacy.

Abolitionism, of course, comes out in the phrase, “make men free.” That is the way Mrs. Howe, as an Abolitionist, wanted to portray the goal of the War–to end slavery. However, if anyone thinks the North waged war on the South in order to end slavery and that the South was fighting to preserve slavery, then he knows nothing of the real issues that caused the Southern states to secede from the Union.

Many modern hymnals change this line to, “Let us live to make men free.” Apparently, this was first done by Fred Waring, who used this song on his network radio show during World War II. The song was such a hit for the Pennsylvanians that Waring featured it as the closing number in his live concerts for the next 32 years.

But why have hymn-book editors followed Waring in this change? Do they think that perhaps the original intent of Mrs. Howe is better captured by the word “live”? After all, so the reasoning might go, men have to be alive to serve as missionaries to the unsaved who need to be “freed” from sin. How utterly foolish to imagine that this is what Mrs. Howe meant! Her original intent is quite clear, and she used exactly the right word.

So God is “marching on” with the Union troops? I see nothing of God in General Sherman’s despicable “march to the sea,” destroying crops, farms, burning civilian houses, and deliberately executing a scorched-earth policy of destruction across Georgia.

What a travesty that the words of this woman have found such loving acceptance in Bible-believing churches! What a travesty that they stir emotions of patriotic fervor to unparalleled heights of ecstasy in the congregations that sing this “hymn”! It should never be sung by any Christian in any church anywhere, North or South.

Blasphemy in Song by Laurence M. Vance

I have had this for some time, just now getting around to posting .



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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 everyone 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

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. He is also the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. His new book is Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
Laurence M. Vance Archives

Most Academic Historians Are Not Biased

Reposted From: https://civilwarchat.wordpress.com/2021/09/27/most-academic-historians-are-not-biased/#comments

(September 27, 2021) Most academic Civil War historians are not biased, they are corrupted. Unfortunately, corrupted is the right word. They became corrupted when they turned into social activists instead of truth-seeking historians. It left them invested in a social movement that demands a fixed interpretation of the War. One that demonizes Confederates and demands the removal, destruction and vandalization of their statues. Such historians cannot change that opinion without betraying their political movement.

Consequently, they put their academic effort into buttressing their fixed opinions to the Nth degree. They give us character assassinations of honorable men like Robert E. Lee whom they accuse of whipping slaves, resisting reunification, and being an overrated commander. They will no longer publish books and papers that question their viewpoint. To do so might reveal that they made an irrevocable mistake when they failed to defend Confederate monuments. Their own self-interest serves to keep their opinions unmovable and to censor anything to the contrary. The academic press will only publish books and papers that support their corrupted conclusions.

According to a 2016 article about the political affiliations of college faculty members for the “Econ Journal Watch,” Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a 12-to-1 margin. The situation in the history departments was even worse because the Democrat-to-Republican ratio was 34-to-1, which made it the most lopsided distribution of the seven academic disciplines surveyed. Given the maxim: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” it should not be surprising that academic bias has evolved into corruption.

One reason corruption is bad is that it undermines the authority of the institution. Corrupted professors at the Ivy Leagues and other venerable schools steal that authority. They exploit the institutional reputations that have been built up over 100 years or more with outrages such as Critical Race Theory, which divides the country racially into two factions: victims and oppressors. Regardless of their behavior, whites are assumed to be the oppressors and blacks the victims. America’s obsession over so-called systemic racism threatens to destroy our country. Any disagreement with the significance of systemic racism results in attempts to silence the critic by labeling him a racist.

Here’s a recent example:

The NAACP and other agenda-driven organizations are compiling lynch statistics. Of course, lynchings are evil, but I have been curious to know how many of them during Reconstruction were politically motivated as compared to those that had other motivations. I sought the answer at an online Reconstruction Era chat room. Merely for asking the question I was accused of seeking to “mitigate” the evil of lynching.

I just wanted to know how many of the Reconstruction Era lynchings were designed to keep blacks from voting and defeat carpetbaggers at the polls as compared to the others. Nearly everyone seems to assume that all era-specific lynchings were politically motivated. When everybody believes something without providing evidence, it is appropriate to question it.

Presently the only evidence I have is tenuous and comes from the online “Encyclopedia of Arkansas,” which is shown on the accompanying video. It excludes an alleged Mass Lynching of 24 blacks that the “Equal Justice Initiative” includes. The Arkansas encyclopedia states that the only evidence that it ever happened is a single letter to Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens.

School District Nixes Christopher Columbus Ship Santa Maria in Logo


A high school district in Santa Maria, California, has decided to remove one of Christopher Columbus’ ships from its logo in the near future, the Santa Maria Times reported.

The decision was made by the board of the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District on Tuesday. Production of the current logo will cease, and Superintendent Antonion Garcia will work out a timeline for replacing it with a new one.

“I’ll be happy to bring that forward in the near future, maybe not next month, but in the next few months,” Garcia said.

The superintendent noted that he would not be able to bring forward a timeline as quickly as possible, given that the district is currently devoting many of its resources to operating amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The work will begin later in the fall, and district students will be welcomed to give input.

The district’s logo currently depicts the Santa Maria, one of the ships used in Columbus’ first voyage to America in 1492, according to Britannica.com—the other two being the Niña and the Pinta.

The decision to at least remove the ship came after concerns were raised by students and members of the community. The Santa Maria Times noted that their issues centered around Columbus’ association with the violence and genocide enacted against the indigenous peoples of the Americas by European explorers.

“When they remove the logo, for me and the community, it would be really symbolic showing that the district is willing to change,” Yaquilina Aguirre, a student at Pioneer Valley High School and a member of Future Leaders of America group, said about the decision. “It would show Indigenous students support, that we’ve got your back, that you’re allowed to embrace your culture.”

Newsweek has reached out to the school district for comment.

The logo began appearing in district materials in 1971. The Santa Maria Times found that the image was seemingly never formally adopted by the school district, but was incorporated into its branding after the city officially adopted the ship as its seal in July of that year.

The city council has not indicated that it will be considering a replacement for the seal anytime soon, KSBY 6 reported.

“As a person from the Mixteco community, which is an indigenous community in Oaxaca, Mexico, but can also be found in Guerrero and Puebla, I think this is a first step to talk about a lot of the racism and discrimination that is ongoing,” Sofia Altamirano, a youth leader at indigenous rights organization MICOP, said.

The issue of Columbus’ legacy has caused myriad issues for schools in the U.S. in recent years. In deciding on whether to rename Columbus Day as “Indigenous Peoples Day” on its official calendar, one school in New Jersey opted instead to remove the names of all holidays, leaving students with several unspecified “days off.”

Man behind Pennsylvania billboard of Joe Biden revealed: ‘Making the Taliban Great Again’

Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!


A former Pennsylvania state senator is telling Fox News Wednesday that he has put up around 15 billboards locally with a photo of President Biden in military gear alongside the message “Making the Taliban Great Again.”

Scott Wagner, a Republican who represented a district that includes York County from 2014 to 2018, said in an email that he has “several reasons” for sharing the message across Pennsylvania.

“The pull out rushed through by President Biden had made us the laughing stock of the world,” he wrote. “The Taliban are openly stating that they ran the United States out of Afghanistan – they are now very emboldened.”

The billboards put up in Pennsylvania criticizing President Biden. (Kathryn Sheaffer)

(Click on image to make it larger)

It has only Been Twenty Years

Saw on the news were a bunch of people were mad about the actions of this student removing flags for a 9-11 display. https://meaww.com/fadel-alkilani-student-leader-removes-3-k-us-flags-from-9-11-memorial-viral-washington-university. Now I remind you that it has only been twenty years since the tragedy in New York when some three thousand people died in the Twin Towers destruction.

so how do we get here so fast? Well isn’t it the popular thing to do is protest and destroy or remove what you don’t agree with? Isn’t the thing to do is take action regardless of historical fact or significance. Is the thing to do is make up your own version of history regardless of the truth?

Now tell me honestly why anyone can dispute this students right of protest. What platform do you stand on and say this student has no right when others demonstrate their rights to destroy another person heritage?

Where did all of this start? To the best of my memory it started with the removal of anything Confederate.Now honestly things have been circling back in this direction for sometime, this is just the first time that I can think of someone actually protested a 9-11 display.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again “be careful of what you wish for.”


Oh boy now I have seen it all–https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2021/09/10/richmonds-lee-monument-is-splitsville/#comments– “Splitsville???” Really how silly are you 13 years old? Is that supposed to be funny or cute because it is neither.

Yes folks the Gen. Robert E. Lee statue was taken down in Richmond by “Blackface Northam” and his Gestapo gang. Mackey with his usual hate for anything Confederate is crowing about it, which is not unusual.

If you read Mackey’s post and I do encourage you to do so you will find he love to spew his hate for anything and anyone who is remotely Confederate. Take the tweets he posts , note that he throws out the racist word like float riders throw out beads during Mardi Gras, yet there is no racism displayed. Racism is the only card Mackey can play since he is lacking on true historical fact.

Just mentioning a few other things happening around the country as reported on the news.
1. Bad Boy Biden mandates vaccinations for companies with a 100 or more employees.
2. Vaccinations required in La School district.
3. Justice department sues Texas over abortion laws.
4. TSA recommend fines for not wearing a mask.

Ever heard of anything like this before? Losing your individual rights? Sure you have. The Nazi’s tattooed the Jews, sent them to death camp. Women in Afghanistan are now required to cover their faces in public, can’t drive. Their rights have been revoked by their government

Now with the removal of Confederate statues does this sound familiar— https://en.hromadske.ua/posts/stolen-heritage-how-russia-is-destroying-crimean-archaeological-sites

This— https://www.wgbh.org/news/post/attack-culture-why-isis-destroying-artifacts-across-middle-east

Perhaps this–https://share.america.gov/china-destroys-mosques-and-uyghur-culture/

This is a bit closer to home– https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502492-list-statues-toppled-vandalized-removed-protests

And now Mackey is celebrating this destruction