The Constitution of the United States separates power equally, among three distant branches. The Executive enforces the law, the Legislative makes the laws, and the Judicial interprets the law. What does interpreting the law entail? According to the constitution's strict wording, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects” (Article III, Section 2, Clause i). This vague paragraph does not truly define the leading principles or outline of the Supreme Court's role in an equal government, except to try cases. Prior to 1801, the Court was headed by three men who all made short service. John Jay- first Chief Justice- resigned the Court; John Rutledge- the Second- was appointed during a recess and formally rejected by the Senate; and Oliver Ellsworth- Third- who was in poor health most of his tenure. The most important case tried at this time, arguably, was New York v. Connecticut. Historians today do not even rank cases prior to 1803 on importance. In 1801 John Marshall, a former Congressman and Secretary of State, was nominated by President John Adams to fill the office of Chief Justice. Marshall was accepted and fully confirmed by the Senate. When coming to the Court, Marshall presided over several cases before an important case would come before the floor. Before the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States in 1801, the current President John Adams appointed many Federalist politicians to the newly created high level positions of Circuit Court Justices. When Jefferson took office however, Secretary of State James Madison refused to confirm many of the appointments. One appointee, William Marbury sued Madison for refusing to deliver his commission. Marbury and several others requested that the Court issue a Writ of Mandamus- a Court order to fulfill a particular action- requiring that Madison honor the appointments as stated in the Judiciary act of 1801. In the new case of Marbury v. Madison, a new sense of court power was being seen. Several questions needed to be answered before giving any ruling in favor of either side. Did Marbury have a right to the commission? Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy? Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy? The decision made was controversial yet set a precedent that has yet to be challenged. The Court unanimously ruled Marbury had the legal right to his appointment, however the Court did not have the power to issue a writ. The decision stated of the Judiciary act of 1789- prerequisite to the Judiciary Act of 1801, which gave Congress the power to pass the latter- “Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits” (Marshall, Dk.102). In doing so the Court fully established its right and power of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is the right of Supreme Court to rule acts of Congress or any Law in contest with the Constitution, null and void as the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The opinion argued Congressional Acts that conflict with the Constitution, the Court has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. This methodology of thinking and determining constitutionality is known as loose constructionism. The ruling stretches the meaning of the Article III as it is not specifically stated. The view of loose constructionism was primarily used during the Adams Administration, however Jefferson was a strict Constructionist and criticized the Court’s ruling. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves” (Jefferson). To this day, Judicial Review has not been challenged. The basis of the major Supreme Court cases has been Judicial Review, rather than original jurisdiction. The rise of a precedent so strong that has not ever been overturned is one that can become a great protector of freedoms or a great threat. - Spencer M. Dayton is an RCHA Curator and adjunct contributor specializing in pre-Revolution to Constitutional Era American history.
0 Comments
Freire, Paulo. “The Banking Concept of Education.” In Austin, Michael, Reading the World: Ideas That Matter, 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Pp 62-66. Print. As in much of post-colonial South America, Brazil in the mid-20th century was a nation of political turmoil. Oppression of various groups was not an uncommon governmental practice, and civil liberties which are so cherished today were trampled upon regularly. Though not born directly into such a condition, Paulo Freire (1921-1997) – an educator and philosopher, - witnessed firsthand the degrading dehumanization which took place in his native Brazil. Freire had succeeded in having some of his educational policies, developed over several years to support the poor, oppressed, and colonized, implemented in the early 1960s. In 1964, however, a military regime came to power which derailed his policies and arrested him for two months under charges of, “Subversive influence.” Freire would later flee to Chile and the United States. It was during his stay in the latter as a visiting professor at Harvard that he published his seminal treatise Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), of which The Banking Concept of Education is an excerpt from the 2nd chapter. This work, which outlines his ideology for a new education system, cemented his place as an integral education theorist of the 20th century. Freire evaluates the current system of education by using the analogy of a banking system. He explains that the methods used in schools are akin to depositors (teachers) and those into which deposits are made (students). Teachers perceive themselves and are perceived by students as authority figures who dictate when, what, and how something is taught. Operating under the presumption that the teacher is knowledgeable and that the student is ignorant, the banking system sees teachers depositing kernels of information into students’ heads which the students readily memorize and mindlessly repeat. Inquiry, therefore, has no place in the banking system, which prioritizes mechanical memorization, facts, formulas, discipline, and regurgitation of information over critical thought and the forging of new knowledge. Freire refers to this banking epidemic as a, “narration sickness”. “Narration [by teachers]” he writes, “leads students to memorize mechanically the narrated content.” Freire likens the banking concept to oppressive sociopolitical regimes, asserting that the banking system of education is used to suppress individual thought and thus maintain the power of those in authority. Naturally, Freire decries such an institution. To replace the banking system, he proposes a, “liberation education” system which he likens to progressive political relations (which stand in stark contrast to oppressive authoritarianism). Supposing that, “Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of knowledge”, Freire’s liberation model supports a dialogical rather than lecture-based teaching method. Teachers and students will engage in a conversation as equals with the teacher posing questions without definitive answers; in turn, the roles of teacher and student are abolished in favor of teacher-student & student-teacher, each learning from the other. In order for the liberation model to be effective, he argues, the banking concept must be abandoned in its entirety – no remnants of its principles can permeate the new system. Teachers must surrender their authority, and students must bear the responsibility of determining what, when, and how they are taught. If this structure is followed, Freire concludes, education becomes a pathway to freedom. - Austin R. Justice is RCRC Chair and a tenured contributor specializing in classics, the American Civil War Era, and Lincoln studies.
Douglass, Frederick. "Learning to Read." In Austin, Michael, Reading the World: Ideas That Matter, 2nd Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Pp 46-52. Print. The early to mid-19th century in the United States was plagued with an ever expanding system of slave labor, particularly in the American South. So entrenched was this peculiar institution that it stained the fabric of the Constitution, which was burned & decried as a slaveholder's document by some such as William Lloyd Garrison. A racially based system, millions of African Americans were born into chattel bondage. Many of these men, women, and children were entirely uneducated in any formal manner -- a majority had little to no literacy skills. Indeed, with the politics of race being a volatile, fiery issue in American society, laws were adopted which denied the right of education to the slave. It was into this inhumane condition, near Baltimore, Maryland, that Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) was born. Propelled to international note by his 1845 autobiography Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, of which Learning to Read is the 7th chapter, Douglass would in time grow to become one of the nation's foremost influential figures. A Garrisonian abolitionist, Douglass employed the fame he attained to combat racial prejudice and advocate for policies of national emancipation. Though hyper-literate and possessing an extraordinary intellect in his adult life, Douglass too began his early boyhood years as an illiterate. Learning to Read is his narrative account of how he came to know the intertwined worlds of education and freedom. Slavery, according to Douglass, has a brutally corrosive effect on the hearts and minds of both the master and the bondsman. He makes this clear through the story of Mrs. Auld, his mistress. Auld initially set about teaching a young Douglass to read, showing him kindness and compassion while viewing him as a human rather than a beast or property. Her demeanor began to shift when her husband, Douglass's master, began to reprimand her for such unlawful lessons. Not only did Mrs. Auld cease her lessons for Douglass, she grew increasingly hostile to his education even beyond the hostility of her husband, angrily snatching newspapers from his hands. Douglass looked on as this once gentle woman grew cold and as her heart hardened. Nonetheless, she had sown the seed of knowledge and Douglass was not to be deterred in his pursuit of literacy. He took books with him on errands, finishing his duties quickly so as to have time to absorb as much as he could from the writings. Explaining that he was always welcome to the family's bread, Douglass would also trade food for lessons from poor white children in the streets. "Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these heavenly qualities. Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the lamblike disposition gave way to one of tiger-like fierceness." - Frederick Douglass, Learning to Read (1845). A book of particular significance to Douglass was the Columbian Orator, a collection of various speeches and orations. It was in this book that Douglass first learned of the plight of the slave -- of the terrible injustice being done to him and those around him, and of the arguments against slavery. One section detailed an exchange between an escaped slave and his master, who was so moved by the slave's arguments for his own emancipation that the he freed him voluntarily. It was through this that Douglass began to link education and freedom. Yet this knowledge of his own state brought a heavy burden upon him -- he notes that oftentimes he wished himself as ignorant as the others, and speculates he might have killed himself or done something to get killed except for his aspirations to freedom. He also notes his confusion as to meaning of the word, "Abolitionist" -- a term used derisively in much of the antebellum South, and the meaning of which he later learned from a newspaper. Having succeeded in learning to read, the task remaining was learning to write. He achieved this through a variety of means. At a shipyard, Douglass noticed that timbers would be marked with such letters as, "L", "A", "LA", "LF", etc. depending on what part of the ship they were intended for. Copying these letters, Douglass would then challenge white children to spelling matches by claiming he could write as well as them. The boys would, of course, win this game but inadvertently gave Douglass spelling lessons. At home, when the family was away, Douglass would use the old school copybooks of young Thomas Auld, rewriting in the margins what Thomas had written in school. Through these efforts, Douglass would come to learn to both read and write -- and inevitably escape to freedom with his new-found abilities. - Austin R. Justice is RCRC Chair and a tenured contributor specializing in classics, the American Civil War Era, and Lincoln studies.
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. “Manners to Be Observed by Teachers and Students.” In Austin, Michael, Reading the World: Ideas That Matter, 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Pp 24-31. Print. The Near Eastern world in the 11th century experienced an explosion of intellectualism fueled by the infusion of foreign ideas. Though the Near East had seen extensive interaction with the West in antiquity – namely with the Greek world, Koine Greek becoming the lingua franca and multiple Hellenistic states arising, - the advent of Islam & Christianity and the incorporation of religious divisions separated the two regions. In the 11th century, the spread of Islam to these regions (not exclusively the West), i.e. southern Spain or India, allowed trade & immigration to again flow between these areas. Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) was born into this new multicultural, “Golden Age.” Al-Ghazali was a Seljuk intellectual who was trained in the school of neoclassical thought. Like many of his contemporaries, his initial work primarily dealt with the philosophies of Aristotle. As one of Islam’s most widely respected scholars, he was appointed head of Nizamiyyah College in Baghdad. Yet despite such success, al-Ghazali resigned his post at the college in 1095 in the wake of a spiritual upset wherein he found it impossible to marry the ideas of a Greek pagan with his religious principles. In 1096-7, he authored the seminal The Revival of Religious Learning, of which Manners to Be Observed by Teachers and Students is a section. A highly influential treatise, al-Ghazali’s work remains the second-most read text in Islam behind the Quran itself. Proposing that religion is necessary for both learning and teaching, al-Ghazali’s work is divided into two major sections: one regarding students and one regarding teachers. The first section contains ten tenets which students should follow, the second section contains eight tenets which teachers should follow. Underlying effectually all of the tenets is Sufism – an Islamic notion that the purpose of living is to grow nearer to God daily. As such, the duties of the student and teach are often similar in their intent and seek a mutual effort between the two. Take the first through third duties of the student: free yourself from, “impure habits” and keep aloof from the world while submitting to your teacher. Simultaneously, the teacher must dissuade students from worldly things by caring for them as though they were his children, setting an example for human purity. Students must aspire to all branches of knowledge rather than being narrow in their educational scope, though seeking out the, “important” branches first. Teachers must thus never berate any subject before their pupils, instead helping them to better understand various sciences and to seek God. - Austin R. Justice.
Wollstonecraft, Mary. “On National Education.” In Austin, Michael, Reading the World: Ideas That Matter, 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010. Pp 35-44. Print. The 18th century was a pivotal era for both Europe and the world, forging new ideas about nearly every facet of Western society in the furnace of civil unrest. France’s Revolution of 1789 was the century’s keystone transformative event, sending ripples of contextual radicalism throughout the continent as the dawn of a new century neared. Europe had long been accustomed to the ancien regime of inherent aristocratic authority wherein the upper classes occupied the top of the social pyramid and the lower classes – constituting the majority of the population – lived under aristocratic rule, performing all of a nation’s laborious duties while reaping none of the benefits of their labors. Among most classes, women remained in a stagnant social-political position of effectually second-class citizenship under the ancien regime. As with all other aspects of such a society, the role and rights of women came into question by writers influenced by the Revolution’s societal upheaval. This sets the stage for Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) and her work A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, of which On National Education is the 12th chapter. Wollstonecraft was deeply frustrated by the manner in which men and women were educated in her native England. There existed a system of segregation of sexes in education, with many women receiving no education whatsoever. On National Education draws on the liberal notions expounded by the Revolution to propose a better method of education. Her work would prove incredibly significant as it lays out a rough diagram for our current coeducational public schools. Taking the charge that no actual difference existed between the social classes, Wollstonecraft claims that there are no differences in potential, intellect, or ability between the sexes. It is for this reason that Wollstonecraft argues against private schools, which she suggests teach children they’re somehow different by nature. Instead her fundamental argument is that the government should create a free public education system in which men and women are educated together and given the same educational opportunities. She feels that this is a necessary move for improving the minds of women, which will thus allow them to be better mothers and wives – indeed she asserts that marriage shall never be sacred until women are, “…prepared to be [men’s] companions rather than their mistresses.” As such, she also advocates for focusing on the “how” of knowledge rather than the “what”, bemoaning the fact that many schools simply teach memorization in place of rational thought/analysis. Here she also diverges into a brief jab at Catholicism, saying that it is founded on the blind following of one man whereas Protestantism allows all to read the Bible for themselves. Taking all of these egalitarian ideas still further, Wollstonecraft concludes that men and women must not only be given equal education but also act according to the same moral values.
This article is a part of the series, "Writ in Burnished Rows of Steel: A Musical History of the American Civil War Era". The Battle Hymn of the Republic is widely regarded as one the greatest nationalistic poems ever to flow from the American pen. Though easily recognizable and heard in churches and government capitals alike, few readers look beyond its eloquent words to seek its deeper message. Here we will examine its wordage, context, and history to discover precisely such a message. Indeed, Howe’s use of familiar allusions, tone, sound, and other devices greatly enhance the poem by giving it a profound literary meaning. In order to fully reveal such meaning, we’ll begin with a historical evaluation followed by a stanza-by-stanza analysis. Howe’s Battle Hymn was written in a time of unprecedented crisis. Several states had declared the Union dissolved, and in response the newly-elected Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion. The War of the Rebellion, as the Federal government termed it, was initially viewed as a war for Union alone. By the point of the poem’s composition in November 1861, this Unionist conflict was well underway. Julia Ward Howe was wedded to a physician who served on the Army Sanitation Commission. She wrote her famed poem while in the camp of a Union army after hearing the men sing John Brown’s Body. Sometimes called Glory, Hallelujah, the song is often misinterpreted as a praising of militant abolitionist John Brown whose actions and execution hastened the coming of the war. Rather, the song originated as a cry for avenging the death of one Sergeant John Brown who fell by Confederate fire. This misconception regarding John Brown’s Body represents the fallacy of interpreting history in hindsight. We today know that the war came to determine the fate of slavery, but one must remember that the average Union soldier had little quarrel with the institution in 1861. In fact, this is precisely the reason for the Battle Hymn’s existence. The Howes, known to be staunch abolitionists who had partaken in Bleeding Kansas in 1856, were among the few to realize that the war concerned something greater than Union. Julia Ward Howe’s new composition would weave together the cause of the Union with a divine call for emancipation in order to better instill the idea in average soldier’s mind. It was quite a logical move. The 19th century United States was a fervently religious society, with many states go so far as to ban non-Christians from holding public office. The comparison of emancipation to God’s struggle therefore bolstered the cause’s strength considerably. It is also fitting, given that songs sung by slaves themselves were typically religious in nature. The melody to Howe’s poem when sung is, via John Brown’s Body, even indirectly derived from an antebellum jubilee spiritual called Say, Brothers, Will You Meet Us on Canaan’s Happy Shore? Regarding the poem’s lyrics themselves, they are on the whole written in rhythmic stanza. That is, there’s a repetition of syllables. The poem is also generally written in an iambic meter, in which the lines are composed of iambs. An iamb is a metrical foot which has one unstressed and one stressed syllable. The poem also takes a rather percussive sound (assuming one holds it to the melody of John Brown’s Body), thus suiting it to military drums. Yet to demonstrate how the poem expresses such abolitionist sentiments, we must analyze it stanza-by-stanza: Stanza 1 Lines 1-4 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. The first stanza of the poem depicts a vengeful God whose might, though righteous, can be frightful. It is influenced partially by the commonplace 19th century belief that the Second Coming of Christ would soon occur. “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord” alludes to this event which was originally foretold in Scripture. The stanza then continues to mention the, “grapes of wrath”. This alludes to Biblical descriptions of God’s trampling of sin, such as in Revelation 14:19, "the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God." In the context of the era, the sin which God is trampling is the peculiar institution of slavery. God’s, “terrible swift sword” of line 3 is a reference to the American Civil War: the Father’s fiery trial which has been sent as punishment for said institution. In this way, Howe’s poem preempts most other works in realizing that the war was for much more than Union. The wordage itself alludes to Isaiah 27:1, “In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword." Stanza 2 Lines 5-8 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 second stanza contrasts the first by directly referencing the Union armies rather than employing Biblical allusions. Howe labors to paint a vivid picture of the hundred camps of the armies, such as the ones she visited with her husband. These camps are filled with lamp-lit Bible readings by the common soldier. In conjuring these images, she affirms that God is on the side of the Union. The nation’s soldiers are carrying out God’s will, fighting God’s fight – again, a fight not simply to preserve the Union but to trample the national sin of the American people. In seeing Him in the camps’ watch-fires, she holds that God travels in the hearts of all Unionists everywhere. In having those men builds altars or read Scripture, she holds that the indeed highly religious soldiers likewise devote themselves to God. Stanza 3 Lines 9-12 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.” The third stanza returns us to major Biblical allusions. In fact, this stanza alludes to man’s creation story. Upon Eve’s eating of the forbidden fruit after being tempted by the snake, God decrees that all mankind will bear punishment for this original sin. Yet he also states that the snake will be punished in due time by saying, in Genesis 3:15, that one of Adam & Eve’s descendants will, "bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." Howe proposes that this event is preparing to take place. Jesus, a descendant of Adam because he was, “born of woman”, has returned as foretold and shall, “crush the serpent with his heel”. That is, he shall crush the Confederacy and its peculiar institution – the original sin of the United States. Stanza 4 Lines 13-16 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. The fourth stanza has little basis in Christian texts. Trumpets are seldom mentioned in the Bible except in apocalyptic events. Instead, we see a pattern of alternation in the poem: one stanza alludes to the Bible, the next is religious but not derived from the Bible, and so forth (as the fifth stanza will later prove). This stanza serves to provide inspiration: God’s judgment and will are being enacted now, this very day, and we must heed his clarion call. It also hints in the first line that the Unionist cause cannot be defeated because it is God’s cause. She reminds us that, as God is now judging us, we must act swiftly to uphold and encourage his will. Stanza 5 Lines 17-20 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. The fifth stanza offers what is perhaps the single greatest intertwining of God’s will and the Unionist cause. Howe clearly alludes to the Biblical crucifixion of Jesus in the 19th line, “As he died to make men holy…” According to Scripture, God permitted the execution of his own son in order to wash away the sins of mankind in blood. She then continues in the same line, “…let us die to make men free”. Howe firmly grounds the Union’s struggle in holy terms through this stanza. By alluding to Christ’s death to wash away sin, she says that contemporary Americans must be willing to sacrifice themselves just as Christ had. Indeed, their martyrdom would also be to wash away sin: the sin of human bondage. Ultimately, the Battle Hymn of the Republic is one of the greatest and most complex pieces of poetry in American history. It innovatively strives to integrate the moral righteousness of a nation’s religion with the utmost moral cause of our nation’s cruelest war. Unlike other religious emancipationist pieces, i.e. Kingdom Coming, it tells more than simply the story of a slave yearning to be free. Rather it appeals to the hearts, minds, and souls of all men everywhere – slave and free. John Brown’s Body remained considerably more popular among the armies themselves due to its less complex structure and wording, which made it a better marching song. Its melody also inspired a much lesser-known work: the Marching Song of the First Arkansas. The 1st Arkansas, under charge of Captain Lindley Miller, was later standardized as the 46th Regiment, United States Colored Troops. "I wrote a song for them to the tune of ‘John Brown’ the other day, which the whole Regiment sings. I sent a copy of it to Anthony." - Captain Lindley Miller, January 20, 1864. Battle Hymn of the Republic as performed by the George Mitchell Chorale. Though written in 1861, Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic was first published in February 1862 by the Atlantic Monthly (now The Atlantic). It is said that the editor, James T. Fields, titled the song. "[I awoke]...in the gray of the early dawn, and to my astonishment found that the wished-for lines were arranging themselves in my brain. I lay quite still until the last verse had completed itself in my thoughts, then hastily arose, saying to myself, 'I shall lose this if I don't write it down immediately.'" - Julia Ward Howe, in reflection on the Battle Hymn's composition. John Brown's Body John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave, John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave, John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave. His soul's marching on! CHORUS. Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah! His soul's marching on! He's gone to be a soldier in the army of our Lord, He's gone to be a soldier in the army of our Lord. He's gone to be a soldier in the army of our Lord. His soul's marching on! Chorus: Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah! His soul’s marching on! John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, His soul's marching on! Chorus: Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah! His soul’s marching on! His pet lamps will meet him on the way, - His pet lamps will meet him on the way, - His pet lamps will meet him on the way. - They go marching on! Chorus: Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hally Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah! They go marching on! They will hang Jeff Davis to a tree! They will hang Jeff Davis to a tree! They will hang Jeff Davis to a tree! As they march along! Chorus: Glory Hally, Hallelujah! Glory Hally, Hallelujah Glory Hally, Hallelujah! As they march along! Now, three rousing cheers for the Union! Now, three rousing cheers for the Union! Now, three rousing cheers for the Union! Say, Brothers, Will You Meet Us on Canaan's Happy Shore? Say brothers, will you meet us? Say brothers, will you meet us? Say brothers, will you meet us? On Canaan's happy shore? Glory, glory hallelujah! Glory, glory hallelujah! Glory, glory hallelujah! For ever, evermore! By the grace of God, we'll meet you By the grace of God, we'll meet you By the grace of God, we'll meet you Where parting is no more! Glory, glory hallelujah! Glory, glory hallelujah! Glory, glory hallelujah! For ever, evermore! Jesus lives and reigns forever Jesus lives and reigns forever Jesus lives and reigns forever On Canaan's happy shore! All USCT regiments were commanded by white officers. Marching Song of the 1st Arkansas published in dialect, 1864. Say, Brothers, Will You Meet Us on Canaan's Happy Shore?, John Brown's Body, Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Marching Song of the 1st Arkansas.
It should be noted that this paper is much more an exercise in argument than an actual representation of the author's views. As we hope to teach our RCRC Fellows, it is vital for one to be able to entertain an idea without wholly accepting it. In this instance, the author endeavors to purposefully reject a conventional narrative. The paper's arguments do not necessarily correspond with the author's true historiographic interpretations. “The Union is dissolved!” heralds the Charleston Mercury amid the winter of 1860. Thus was the great democratic experiment, embodied by a youthful nation born of feverish sectionalism, accosting its near certain collapse. This is the narrative engrained in the minds of millions; one of the divide of a frustrated country, of the birth of a new nation and its subsequent death, and the binding of our wounds. Yet what if it isn’t true? What if the wounds were never bound? What if there was never a nation to divide? It is these and many more questions this essay seeks to answer. Join us as we excavate the complex evolution of the United States from a loose federation of nations to a cohesive country – as we venture, in the words of Shakespeare later applied to Gettysburg, once more unto the breach. Let’s begin by exploring the conventional American narrative. What do you know about our history? How did this nation come into existence? As these queries are posed, you likely recline with ease, comfortable in your certainty as to the answers to such familiar questions. Our story as an independent country dates to July 4, 1776. The Continental Congress, a rebellious group of colonial delegates, adopts what is today known as the Declaration of Independence – the fundamental document which pronounces the dissolution of any political bonds between the 13 newly formed states and the United Kingdom. This in turn ignites a revolution: an ultimate struggle for self-existence, for our emancipation from a hundred years of British imperial tyranny. The justification is clear: the unfair Stamp Act, overbearing repeal of salutary neglect, the outrageous Boston Massacre all press the colonial patriots to reject the Crown. Meanwhile the loyalists are the true traitors, wishing to keep us bound to an apathetic king. Inevitably, via the Treaty of Paris, our statehood gains British recognition. Omitting the brief incompetence of those weak Articles of Confederation, we effectually are now the United States of America. With intermittent bouts of British aggression, we then set out to spread our ideas all across this broad land. From there we derive our legacy, and our republic endures to this day as a cornerstone of the ever unfolding experiment of the people, by the people, and for the people. If all of what you’ve just combed through sounds like the repetitious regurgitation of the origins of the US that you’ve heard all your life, that’s because it more or less is what’s taught to American youth from an extraordinarily young age. Those who challenge the story are simply deemed un-American or unpatriotic. Nonetheless it is only via the historian’s practice of objective analysis that we may measure the story’s accuracy. What if it isn’t true? What don’t you know about our history? Did this nation come into existence in 1776, if ever? Permit us to briefly return to the year 1776. Indeed, it was on July 4th of said year that the unsanctioned Continental Congress adopted a revised edition of Jefferson’s declaration (although contrary to popular belief, it was not signed by most delegates until August.) However, what you know as the Declaration of Independence was then entitled the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. Just as its name has shifted, so has its meaning and interpretation. Though millions of students are taught that it was this document which proclaimed the independence of today’s US, it in actuality proclaimed the independence of 13 nations. Namely: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Georgia, State of North Carolina, and all of the other names which are symbolized by 13 red stripes on our banner. Examination of the evidence is substantially clear. The Declaration explicitly describes …that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States. What’s more, it continues to refer to the United Kingdom as the State of Great Britain. Period terminology and parlance use the word state as a synonym for country or nation. To this day they remain, in the greater international context, words with essentially the same meaning; take for example the State of Palestine or the State of Israel – each of which claims itself a sovereign nation. (The term commonwealth refers to the governmental structure, similar to the Federal Republic of Germany or Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It’s of English origin, tracing to Cromwell’s short-lived Commonwealth of England.) In summation, the American Revolution represents the temporary banding together of 13 proposed countries. Each sought to serve its own agenda yet was fully aware that it could not stand against the UK individually. They thus formed a military alliance for the common defense, comparable to the earlier New England Confederation. This idea of separate statehood did not dissipate after the Treaty of Paris. The first constitutional compact authorized by these states was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Articles explain that the states are joined in a firm league of friendship and as such even devote an entire section to reassuring that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. A confederation (or confederacy, a term we are refrained to toss about carelessly due to its future connotation) is, by definition, a loose union of sovereign nations which convene such as to make common decisions. Often confederations are formed for defense purposes. Moreover, the doctrine of state sovereignty – from which states’ rights spring – is not wholly lost in the 1787 US Constitution still in effect today. The 10th Amendment to the document holds that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This is an outright attempt at establishing the relationship between the several States and what Jefferson calls the General Government: federalism. The line which converts confederation to federation is rather thin, and hence not easily defined. Generally, we may define a federation as a union of sovereign states which yield some authority to a centralized government. Typically such centralized, or Federal, government is given to supersede state governments in priority. Having established all that is above, we must ask ourselves: why is our modern narrative so inaccurate? How has this story of a federation of nations grown to become one of a single nation? The answer lies in the eruption of a mighty scourge of war which ravaged these United States for circa four years. The American Civil War (1861-65) is the seminal event in American history. Its aftermath continues to bear down upon us to this day. It pressed the very comprehension of the United States in the minds of both citizens and the world. In brevity, it has defined and does define us. Fittingly, this cruel war has in part defined our interpretation of the United States. In order to discover precisely how it has done so, we must first take a moment to examine the conflict’s origins and nature. The Civil War was born of intense sectionalist fanaticism and an entrenched Southern sentiment favoring states’ rights. With specificity, the supposed right of said states to maintain, perpetuate, and spread their peculiar institution. Indeed most prominent historians conclude that the Constitution permitted slavery prior to the 13th Amendment (1865,) and Taney’s Supreme Court – still sitting throughout the war – had but years prior ruled that popular sovereignty was invalid via the Dred Scott Decision. Thus ironically it would be those seeds of state sovereignty which were sown during the American Revolution that would lead to the collapse of anti-federalism in the US. Abraham Lincoln’s success in the 1860 Presidential election prompted the near immediate secession of South Carolina in December. Lincoln, whose antebellum ideologies leaned toward Western abolitionism, was a gradualist: he sought to prevent the spread of slavery in hopes of its eventual extinction in states wherein it already existed; to permit it a natural death. This was perceived as an affront to South Carolinian tradition, society, and life style. By spring of 1861, ten other states had followed South Carolina and entered into a confederation (or confederacy) with her (the Confederate States of America.) The CSA also claimed Kentucky and Missouri; however these states never formally adopted ordinances of secession, and Kentucky initially announced its neutrality – much to Lincoln’s annoyance. The details of the war’s combat and campaigns are here irrelevant. This will permit us to sweep through various sociopolitical portions of 1861-85 much more swiftly. Lincoln, though a gradual abolitionist, was foremost an ardent Unionist. Although the conflict would later present him with an opportunity to emancipate some slaves as a military measure, his primary concern was the preservation of the Union. His prioritized convictions are perfectly viewed by his letter to Horace Greely: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. Of course, when weighing Lincoln’s words we must also consider his savvy knowledge of the power of the press (Greely was the editor of a well-known New York paper.) Merely because Lincoln says it does not necessarily mean that he truly believes it; even though they may appear to be true views. He is quite keen to carefully select whatever words will ensure public favoritism and promote the Unionist cause. It is in Lincoln’s words that we begin to behold the forging of a nation. Any Lincoln scholar is undoubtedly aware of the nationalistic symbolism painted in his oratory. There are literally countless examples: …this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom… (Gettysburg Address); The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union… (1st Inaugural); With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. (2nd Inaugural.) This is again a work of his political genius in bolstering Unionist sentiment. His incentives are quite apparent: he must circulate the language of nationalism, of the concept of a nation brought forth four score and seven years ago, in order to reign in the hearts and minds of common citizens for supporting the war. Simultaneously, though he won’t live to attempt it, a new concept of nationalism rather than federalism (and its accompanying state sovereignty) may prove useful in stitching the Union back together. With the fragility of the Border States, who constantly sway between the Federal and Confederate governments, there was perhaps no alternative. Once Lincoln even let slip in a letter I think that to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Nationalistic rhetoric also damaged the Confederacy in American memory. The Federal government’s official name for the war is the War of the Rebellion. This is a recurring terminology; the Emancipation Proclamation frees slaves in States which were in rebellion. By painting the Confederate States as an insurrection against the nation, he successfully secured their eternal treachery in the eyes of millions. Beyond oratory and the era’s openly partisan press, Lincoln also used another avenue of nationalism in order to muster Unionism throughout the citizenry: music. Songs of the Civil War Era reflect social movements, campaigns, and the general socio-cultural atmosphere. We see shifting social ideas about emancipation – initially an unpopular concept – through such songs as Henry Clay Works’ Marching through Georgia (1865.) Take the piece’s chorus as an example: 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! For context, a jubilee was during the period a gathering of colored people in which they’d sing spirituals and songs of freedom. (Howe’s Battle Hymn of the Republic actually evolved, indirectly, from a jubilee spiritual called Say, Brothers, Will You Meet Us on Canaan’s Happy Shore?) Lincoln then used the popularized rallying song The Battle Cry of Freedom as a means of exploiting growing waves a nationalism in his 1864 campaign. The chorus was modified to read: For Lincoln and Johnson, hurrah, boys, hurrah! Down with the rebellion, and on with the war! While we rally to our cause, boys, rally in our might; singing the holy cause of free men! The list is endless. We cannot call the Great Emancipator the father of American nationalism in its entirety. It existed in varying degrees throughout the Antebellum Period, primarily within the ranks of the Federalist Party as a means of advancing Federal authority. We can, however, credit Lincoln as the father of contemporary American nationalism. It is his idea of a consolidated nation born in 1776, shattered and rejoined by a fiery trial, which persists in American historical memory. In truth, we are more so a nation born of 1865 than of 1776 or 1787. These concepts were solidified in the early 20th century by FDR’s expansion of the Federal government’s role via the New Deal. They are what presently remain in our modern society. It is occasionally referenced as New Federalism. Many historians never address this change (although I am glad to report that preeminent Civil War historian James McPherson’s latest work centers on it.) One can well suspect that this is because today’s historians have been indoctrinated into the idea of the US as a nation since birth. One can furthermore consider historical revisionism; some scholars have an incentive to maintain the status quo, as it translates into profit for their publications and reputation. The fact that we are a federation – a nation of nations – has never changed in any de jure fashion. The Constitution of 1787 remains in effect. Remnants of its doctrine remain, i.e. the term Federal government rather than national, or the State of the Union address rather than State of the Nation. In this legalistic manner, there never was nation. Conventional wisdom falls utterly flat. However for many people perception is reality. We operate as, and view ourselves as, a nation. We must account for shifting ideas throughout time; our Lincolnian nation is indeed a de facto one at the least. - Austin R. Justice, River Cities Research Commission Chair. Do you read our blog? Want new content? Let us know! We want to get a feel for how large our audience is. For many of us, the academic year is moving into full swing. Our lives are once more brimming with stress, obligations, and lacking in spare time. Fret not though, for as promised we aren't suspending the New KHF. The next installment of the MST should be published in weeks to come. Meanwhile, we have a supplementary mini-article for you as well as two doses of terrific news! Many changes are coming about in River Cities: we've a new corps of officers, new members are being inducted at fantastic rates, new ideas abound, and naturally some members are leaving to step out into the wide world of life. Most recently, I was present at the August 9th session of River Cities Chapter in order to facilitate a vote on the River Cities Research Commission. (It passed.) The RCRC is an equal opportunity joint initiative between the HKI and RCD Committee on Historicity; just as KHF has been a joint HKI-RCD program, so it shall continue to be -- now falling under the authority of the RCRC. What implications arise from such a major decision? There are numerous benefits which are to be fostered by the RCRC; however, the most relevant to the RCD Blog is the creation of the RCRC Fellowship Program. Each year we'll be accepting applications from various locations in our region from high school/university students with a strong academic record, adamant passion for the social sciences, and keenness for civic virtues regardless of age, sex, gender identity, origins, etc. The program is entirely free of charge. Five RCRC Fellows will be selected from the applicant pool, and these bright young scholars will be mentored in the manners of research and historiography. Each will be given an opportunity to perform research for and write articles on the RCD Blog; one fellow, whom we judge to have exhibited the greatest ability, will be offered a position as a Tenured Contributor to the New KHF. This means that this blog will soon be seeing fresh, new authors and topics. I'll still remain the Chief Contributor. We're also considering expanding our scope to opinion pieces, social issues, etc. I hope you're as excited as I am for this wonderful institution! Effective immediately, the application period has been opened and I am to begin signing these articles as, "Austin R. Justice, River Cities Research Commission Chair" rather than, "History of Kentucky Group." While I remain a member of both, the RCRC is now directly responsible for the New KHF. Away, I'm Again Bound Away, 'Cross the Wide OhioThe other bit of news is equally (perhaps more so for me, personally) exciting. I was recently informed that I have been selected for a scholarship to the 2015 Lincoln Colloquium in Lincoln, Illinois! The Colloquium - to be held this year at the Lincoln Heritage Museum - is an annual academic conference for Lincoln scholars, similar to the Lincoln Forum (for which I am also pending a scholarship.) On October 2/3rd I'll be once again in the beautiful Land of Lincoln to hear presentations from historians such as Douglas Wilson and William Pederson! A particular highlight about which I'm ecstatic is the presence of Dr. James Cornelius, Curator of the Lincoln Collection at the ALPLM. Dr. Cornelius curated the powerful Undying Words exhibition featured in our previous MST installment Day 3 Part I. Let's not lend ourselves entirely to solipsism, though. The good news for our readers: you're (virtually) coming with me! I'll be certain to blog from the conference as a part of our New KHF. It'll likely be categorized as an extension of our MST. There is also the possibility that I may remain after the conference to visit the Urbana-Champaign area and finally make my way to St. Louis, Missouri. More information will be made available via another update in mid-late September. Finally, while you eagerly await the next MST chapter, we hope to stay any impatience with a mini-article. For those who are unaware, I'm also a volunteer for the Pikeville-Pike County Museum specializing in the American Civil War Era exhibit. By the time of our grand opening in September, we hope to have seven rooms open to public. Yesterday, I took some photographs of three rooms opened but days ago. The City That Moved A MountainWelcome to my hometown where I was born and (partially) raised! As a native Pikevillian, I take a sentimental pride in the city. It is somewhat famed afar as the City That Moved A Mountain, which references the Pikeville Cut Thru Project. Known as the 8th Wonder of the World, the Pikeville Cut Thru was a 20th century initiative began by the mayor which resulted in the rerouting of a river and the removal of a large portion of a mountain due to heavy flooding in the city. Second only internationally in the size of the earth-relocation to the Panama Canal, it is remains a true source of pride for the city and is represented in the city's seal. Pikeville is nestled in the Appalachia region's Big Sandy Valley in Southeastern Kentucky. It's the county seat of Pike County, our state's largest county in terms of land area. Founded in the early 19th century, it was originally named the Town of Pike prior to being renamed Piketon and, immediately prior to the Civil War, Pikeville. It indeed experienced a brief occupation during the conflict, and was the site of the promotion of James A. Garfield to the rank of Brigadier General. Pikeville is also home to former Kentucky Governor Paul E. Patton. Ever expanding, it is a decent sized city for Eastern Kentucky yet still a small town when given to comparison with Lexington or Louisville. Pike County is named for Zebulon Pike, military officer and discoverer of Golden Peak (Now Pike's Peak;) Pikeville is in turn named for the county. Two of most prominent buildings in the city's ever expanding downtown are the Pike County Courthouse and Judicial Center. The Old Hall of Justice, in which the Pikeville-Pike County Museum (formerly Big Sandy Heritage Center) is located, is on the courthouse plaza though not pictured above. The museum is presently divided into four rooms. The main room, which will not be shown, is a preview of the collection; it contains the Civil War exhibit as well as exhibits pertaining to pre-European colonization, pre-industrialization, the Hatfield-McCoy Feud, Pikeville Cut Thru, and everyday domestic devices. Upon our grand opening in September, there will be seven rooms total. Today I'll be providing brief views of the three other rooms presently open to the public: the Heritage Room (above,) Medicine Room, and Coal Room. The museum continues in its organization, construction, and building re-purposing. As such a majority of displays and artifacts, such as this ornate family register pictured above, have little to no interpretive signage. It is my hope that this can be soon rectified. By extension, much of what you will see here is but a sequence of photographs; I'll provide some interpretation for particular favorites. This etching, titled My Old Kentucky Home, does little to represent life in Pike County. Having considerably little flat land, Pike County is rife with mountain sides and hill-top homes. It is nonetheless rather beautiful. This clock was assembled by Pike County's John McGilp, who from 1910-11 attended the British Horological Institute. His degree is framed below. My first day at the museum, circa 3 months ago, had little to do with the 19th century (although I did uncover an 1878 Harper's Weekly from the year of a failed Post-War Reconstruction.) Rather I was tasked with unboxing several boxes and cataloging artifacts I felt worthy of exhibition. The book above is one of such items. On a note of contemporary Pikeville, this print promoted the 2003 grand opening of original Big Sandy Heritage Center at the old train depot. Ah, the Coal Room. Pike County is one of the great (or infamous, depending on your opinion) coal counties of Eastern Kentucky. The same cannot be said of Boyd County, although the City of Ashland claims to be where coal meets iron. The coal industry in Pike County has flourished for numerous years; my maternal grandfather was a mine rescue team member and Vietnam veteran (to give you an idea of chronological roots of mining in PC.) It is deeply ingrained in Pike Countian society; it was once the default occupation, and its remnants still remain cultural norms. I, for instance, recall dressing as a coal miner during the 1st grade as a child. However in our increasing environmentally conscious society, pressing EPA regulations have caused vehement outcry in the region. Many Pikevillians fervently rally 'round their traditional industry. Indeed, Eastern Kentucky generally is a den of conservatism. Yet much of PC's citizens identify as Democrats, the party traditionally aligned with unions (see below and above.) The result is an odd pairing: conservative Democrats, at times called Blue Dog Democrats. (I am refrained to mention my personal political ideologies here, as they are irrelevant.) We hope you've enjoyed this brief glance into the City That Moved A Mountain. Check back regularly for the next MST installment!
- Austin R. Justice, River Cities Research Commission Chair. Away, (I was Supposed to be) Bound away, 'cross the Wide Missouri... Days 3-5 of the MST Update7/31/2015 Our previous installment of the MST, Day 3 Part I, did not include a date for the publication of Part II. As of yet, no definite date has been established; it is most likely to appear between the 2nd and 15th of August. As we noted on the outset of this journey, the RCD blog is often unable to publish weekly throughout the academic year. I am devoted to academic integrity and a high level of detail/scholarship for our publications; this can require hours of work. Unfortunately, time is quite the luxury from August-June annually. We are most assuredly resilient in our resolution to maintain/reform the KHF Program nonetheless; do not expect the RCD blog to grow silent. Indeed, we are presently working to establish a joint HKI-RCD initiative called the River Cities Research Commission which will bring fresh, different opinions and voices to this blog. Regarding the title... When I set out on the Multistate Trek, the intent had been to cover sites in Western Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri. Despite personal injury to my ankle, and being in the recovering stages of an unforeseen ailment, we pressed on gleefully. We accomplished a majority of the goals set forth in Kentucky and Illinois. The issue: we were unable to travel as planned to St. Louis, Missouri due to a serious health concern. In the words of Shenandoah (AKA Across the Wide Missouri) Oh, Shenandoah, I'll not deceive you...away, we weren't bound away, 'cross the wide Missouri. Hence our Multistate Trek morphed into a Bistate Trek (though we are refrained to change the name in order to avoid confusion.) Fret not, as we have weeks worth of installments solely from our Illinois exploits. As a compromise, we have chosen to select photos from our journey to Appomattox and Richmond, Virginia in April 2015 for the sesquicentennial of the Fall of Richmond. These will constitute our final installment (Day 5.) Perhaps it is rather appropriate, given that (as our earlier KHF article On the Curious Origins of Oh, Shenandoah explained,) it is uncertain as to whether the song refers to the Shenandoah Valley/River (in VA) or the native American chief Shenandoah. As of now, please remain patient. Updates will be furnished in the near future. PS - I have never been so proud to be a PMC of River Cities as Sunday, the 26th of July. On this date, all of the members, friends, and families in attendance at the RCD installation signed KHF's letter to Gov. Rauner, urging him to reconsider his ISM closure proposal. Many thanks. - Austin R. Justice, History of Kentucky Group. Across the Wide Missouri as heard in Ken Burns' The West. |
Admin
Hi, I'm the website Admin. I look after the website as well as the chapter social media accounts. Austin R. Justice
PMC of River Cities Chapter and Lincoln Forum & Colloquium Student Scholar. Adjunct ContributorsSpencer M. Dayton Archives
April 2016
Categories |