In recent decades history teachers from all levels have begun to use primary sources as effective tools in classroom assignments and presentations. These sources vary a great deal depending on the subject and time period under investigation and may include letters, diaries, periodicals, photographs, art works, and more. The benefits of introducing such materials are numerous and often self-evident. At a basic level the use of authentic materials enlivens classroom presentations, offering engaging and entertaining stimuli to what might otherwise be dry or pedantic lectures. Original materials are usually popular with students as working with such objects allows them to feel that they are encountering history firsthand. The use of primary sources also provides a multifaceted platform for integrating disciplines, an issue of growing interest to those involved with educational reform.1 At a deeper level the use of authentic materials can create pedagogical situations capable of significant and lasting results. Personal involvement with a historical situation encourages students to examine issues more closely than might occur were they to simply read of an event in a textbook. As Alexa Sandmann and John Ahern have noted, “literature gives students the chance to connect with people from other times … [it] gives students the chance to learn from others.”2 Likewise the bypassing of the textbook allows students to draw their own conclusions from the material under consideration; they are not merely “learning” history but actually “doing” history.3
Scholars know that the intimacy that comes from studying personal documents, to hear the words of the participants themselves, is to touch the past and bring their subject alive. Approaching a subject this way reminds us that history is the story of people: the beliefs, feelings, actions, and all that makes up the human experience. To fully understand historical events one needs to draw on more than just historical “facts” and include the systems of thoughts, values, perceptions, and attitudes that constitute the reality of the participants from both then and now. What better way to approach such topics, especially as teachers, than to use those objects whose primary purpose is directed toward the human experience? Or as some teachers have noted, “It is possible to teach the history of African Americans without referring to their music—but why would you want to?”4
Painting, literature, architecture, and dance are all useful in the history classroom, and music in particular can be an effective pedagogical tool. Throughout history music has been used habitually and in a variety of situations; it was and continues to be considered of immense personal importance to those who participate with it and as such has a profound impact on the daily life of people from every social sphere. Within music we can find a portrait of the people involved in history at any given time, thus catching a glimpse of their personal feelings about major events, including their fears, desires, values, and more. By examining music, students can engage with objects that historical figures actually used and simultaneously evaluate for themselves what individuals of the time might have felt and believed.
Other historical artifacts may allow for such an encounter, though music also provides a unique pedagogical opportunity seldom found in other objects. Most artifacts of history are by default treated as museum pieces, removed from their functional environment and placed into an artificial, didactic setting.5 Certain art works, and music in particular, can still function in some of the ways for which they were originally created. Music allows those from a later time to engage with the artifact as it was intended, that is, as an aesthetic object. Of course it is not possible for students today to experience the work precisely as it was originally intended, as performance practice, aesthetic attitude, educational and social backgrounds, and other factors are impossible to recreate. Yet the possibility still exists for a student to encounter the work as an art object first, to experience the work musically, and from there consider any subsequent issues connected with it. In so doing, students move beyond a cognitive encounter with historical materials and into the realm of emotional experience.6 Few teachers would deny that an emotional engagement of any kind with the material being studied is an invaluable basis for advanced and effective learning. Participating with a work of music in the history classroom allows students to experience an emotional catalyst from the past while at the same time experiencing their own modern aesthetic response.
Many teachers have found ways to use music in their classrooms with predictably effective results. Music is a popular art with students and is one of the most efficacious ways of enlivening a lecture, though often this involves using music at a fairly superficial level.7 For too long music has been seen as ornamental in traditional historical studies. Though some history teachers might enjoy drawing on musical references to invigorate their discussions, rarely is music examined in the depth that other artifacts receive, especially letters and other written documents. The unfortunate result is that music in the classroom functions as an amusing sidebar and not an integral part of the educational experience. Other teachers are reticent to include music in their classes, feeling that their own lack of musical expertise would hinder any discussion.8 Though experience with music theory and history would greatly benefit any teacher, it is not necessary for there to be effective discussion in any level classroom. Care must be taken with what topic is chosen to investigate as well as how the investigation is conducted. Focusing solely on the technical construction of the piece of music requires musical knowledge, yet considering the response to the work does not. In other words, an object-oriented approach is much more likely to require the teacher to possess technical knowledge and skills, whereas a response-oriented approach allows all participants, students and teachers alike, to draw upon their own subjective reactions and function as equals in the discussion.9
There are some historical subjects that are particularly well suited for including music as source material. The American Civil War is a subject ripe for investigation from most any perspective, yet ironically this can pose problems for teachers. From the mid-nineteenth century to today the Civil War has captivated this country in a unique way, a defining event for American culture that continues to fascinate and inspire students, scholars, and the public as a whole. In many respects the Civil War has suffered from a glut of historiography, be it from biased accounts in the aftermath of the war to revisionist histories stressing particular social and political agendas at the expense of more general concerns. As a result the events leading up to, involving, and following the Civil War have become dauntingly complex. Current research on the Civil War is refreshingly deep and stimulating as scholars continue to find a wealth of topics to investigate. But what happens when this information is passed down to students? The Civil War will usually occupy only one segment within a larger course or curriculum on American history, forcing teachers to present a condensed version of subjects and events. This is by no means easy, as many of the issues involved in the Civil War contain within themselves contrasting themes that are of substantial complexity. These underlying oppositions form the basis of any civil war and generate the emotional intensity that characterizes internecine conflicts. How then is a teacher to present such complexities without resorting to shallow, predictable and even misleading generalizations? Primary sources are invaluable in this situation, and music in particular can provide a means of revealing latent contradictions in ways suitable for the classroom. The participants in the War Between the States produced and consumed a staggering amount of musical works. Music was present at most every moment of the soldier’s day, from the clarion sound of reveille that woke him in the morning and the music of the regimental bands at dress parade, to the consoling tones of a favorite ballad around the campfire. On the home front publishers eagerly produced vast quantities of patriotic tunes and sentimental songs for an eager public, fanning the flames of patriotic fervor while profiting hugely. The result is a vast quantity of music, of various styles and intended usage, consumed by a diverse population; in short, an ideal medium for examining the humanistic background of a major event in American history.
Consider the numerous situations where this music was found and the correlated issues immediately apparent in the music. Much Civil War music was used to bind the people, either through political propaganda or by means of bipartisan songs of hope or sorrow. Music became a primary means of declaring one’s loyalties, especially later in the conflict when numerous opposition movements emerged in both the North and South. Singing patriotic songs at rallies and at home was a way for citizens to participate in the war, to be intimately involved in something that was connected to the war movement without being on the front lines. As the war progressed music developed into a primary channel for expressing the tragedy and loss that afflicted so many homes, often in such a way as to minimize geographical differences and anticipate reunification. Singing songs around the piano at home or the campfire in the field was a way of keeping the memory of loved ones fresh and helped to forge an emotional link between soldiers and their families. Some songs dealt solely with emotional subjects, such as the death of a soldier, but other songs often spoke of larger social issues, including slavery, the role of government, conflict of lifestyles, and more.10
In all these cases the aesthetic nature of the music allows any topic addressed to be approached from an emotional perspective. It is possible that by studying this music one can begin to examine many of the causes, controversies, conflicts, and contradictions that embody the war; simultaneously it is possible to engage with the artifact at an aesthetic level, thereby tapping into the personal sphere of the participants as well. In this way music provides a medium for forming connections between the historical past and the student’s present. Music plays a central role in the life of most students today, and it is not difficult to bring out the many ways in which modern music reflects current events while shaping and reinforcing cultural identities.11 From there it is a short step to have them engage with a piece from the Civil War to see parallels in how music captures and reflects public attitudes and sentiments. The proper choice of piece will even enable a teacher to elicit a comparison between a contemporary aesthetic reaction and possible historical responses, that is, how a student today may hear and respond to “Home, Sweet Home” versus a soldier in 1865. In this sense they are trying to see into the mind and soul of those actually caught up in the conflict, and personalizing, and even subjectivizing, a major event from our country’s past. In these ways music can form a pedagogical link between the abstract concepts that swirled around the participants, the events that resulted from these concepts, and the more intimate interior of the participants themselves. At the same time these pieces still resonate and provide a living bridge between people of today and those who experienced America’s greatest tragedy.
An examination of the two musical anthems most commonly associated with the Civil War—the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “Dixie”—reveals how much historical depth can be garnered from music and how effective it can be in teaching situations. Much of the music of the Civil War was intrinsically linked with the people and events of the time and set out to capture and celebrate cultural identities.12 “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “Dixie” are considered ideal examples of this today. Both are well known and liked, and have achieved a stature few compositions can claim in American culture. In this way they are an ideal starting point for an investigation of the Civil War, as there is already a large degree of familiarity for the students.13 More intriguingly, there are a great number of anomalies surrounding these songs that are not common knowledge. These irregularities go a long way toward revealing much of the confusion and complexity that existed at the time, as well as highlighting possible misrepresentations by later historians. An investigation of these anomalies can operate at most any teaching level, from public school social studies to the college history course. One of the marvelous consequences of using music is that its inherently abstract nature allows for a broad range of interpretation, allowing conflicting concepts associated with the Civil War to be broached at both basic and advanced levels.14
Consider the basic background of both songs. The music for “Battle Hymn of the Republic” was originally a tune titled “Say, Bummers, Will You Meet Us,” ascribed to William Steffe of Philadelphia, and eventually adopted as a popular camp meeting song.15 Men of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia used this catchy tune for a parody about a member of their battalion, Sergeant John Brown, and the song spread through the ranks and beyond. Those who heard the melody found it captivating, not only as a rousing piece of music for marching, but now as a song honoring the abolitionist John Brown, executed for his raid on the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry in October, 1859. In 1861 Julia Ward Howe, a prominent New England socialite and committed abolitionist, was invited to attend a grand review of troops in Washington, D.C. Here she heard many of the tunes popular with soldiers, including “John Brown’s Body.” A friend encouraged her to write new words for the song and in an early morning burst of inspiration she produced the lyrics now known as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” The poem was first published in February 1862 in The Atlantic Monthly. It was immensely popular, and “Battle Hymn” quickly became one of the most requested and highest selling songs of the Civil War.
Daniel Decatur Emmett was one of the country’s most successful composers, particularly of the blackface minstrel shows that were so popular at the time.16 Born in Mount Vernon, Ohio in 1815, he grew up surrounded by music. He joined the army for a time as a fifer and eventually wrote a manual of instruction for army musicians.17 Following his military service he became active in minstrel shows, producing a number of future standards, including “Old Dan Tucker” and “Turkey in the Straw.” In 1859 he was asked to provide a new tune for the nationally renowned Bryant’s Minstrels, and the result was “Dixie’s Land.” The song rapidly gained popularity and was picked up by numerous other performers throughout the country. As the secessionist movement gathered momentum in southern states, so too did the popularity of “Dixie’s Land.” Numerous versions appeared, including many with patriotic or martial lyrics supporting the Southern cause.18 Following the formation of the Confederate States of America, “Dixie” was performed at the inauguration of President Jefferson Davis, thereby helping to establish it as a national anthem for the fledgling country.19 One of the premier fighting units of the Confederacy, the Washington Artillery, arranged the piece for their band, thereby spreading the tune’s popularity amongst soldiers. As one witness noted: “‘Dixie’ became to the South what the ‘Marsellaise’ is to France.”20
This then is the background of each song as would probably be found in any basic text. Without any further consideration they remain interesting artifacts, musically popular, yet of limited historical value. This basic information fails to reveal a great many anomalies that surround these songs, irregularities that when uncovered reveal numerous tensions and contradictions that lie beneath the Civil War as a whole. It remains to look deeper into the history and nature of these songs, to see what musical, social, economic, and political issues are inextricably bound up with the songs, and therefore what topics are available for teachers to draw upon.21
A logical next step is to consider the music to each song to see how they compare.22 As discussed before, such a comparison can be made with little formal musical knowledge. Each song occupies a somewhat predictable place in terms of the genres they represent; the differences between them may not be extreme, but interesting nonetheless. “Dixie” is very folkish in its construction. In mimics the synthetic Anglo-Irish and slave dance music that was so popular with minstrel shows, including mild syncopations that help to provide rhythmic drive. “Battle Hymn of the Republic” strikes the listener as a march with its walking beat and repeated dotted rhythms. In each case it is not surprising that the songs were popular. The dance-like, singable nature of “Dixie” affords it an immediate appeal, whereas the martial tenor of “Battle Hymn” lends it well to a patriotic setting. The musical structure of “Battle Hymn” is a rigid strophic form, in that there is one musical unit that repeats for both the verses and the chorus, whereas “Dixie” is a verse-chorus structure, with different music separating the verses and the refrain. In terms of the text setting both songs follow a similar approach. They are basically syllabic, with each change of syllable of the text having a corresponding change of note. An interesting difference appears here in that “Dixie” has numerous repeated words in both the verse and chorus. “John Brown’s Body” also has repeated words, and in both cases this makes the song easier to remember and sing. “Battle Hymn” has repeated words in the chorus, though in the verses there is no word repetition. Despite being syllabic in its setting, it has a number of forced rhymes and rhythmic settings that make it much more difficult to sing or even remember.
Though the text setting is somewhat similar in each of these songs, the lyrics are vastly different, and a comparison of the texts leads to one of the most notable issues in the reception of Civil War music: who exactly was listening to the music, and where they were listening to it. There is a discernible difference when one compares the most popular songs of the soldiers with those of the civilians, both in the North and South. This disparity widened as the war progressed, seeing an increase in the frustration of the soldiers competing with an almost blind optimism of some civilians (or politicians) or the exhausted despair of those who had lost a loved one.23 Despite the modern portrayal of “Dixie” and “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as quintessential Civil War songs, the soldiers held a different view from civilians. In fact, the two most popular tunes for both Yankee and Rebel troops were probably “Home Sweet Home” and “Lorena,” songs with no reference whatever to the political nature of the conflict around them.24
Civilians and soldiers certainly used their music in substantially different ways, and subsequently showed a preference for different types of music. “John Brown’s Body” was an extremely effective marching song, especially when compared with Howe’s “Battle Hymn.” Consider the poetic structure of the opening verse and chorus of each song.
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,
But his soul goes marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
His soul goes marching on.
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.
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
His truth is marching on.
The repetitive nature of the lyrics to “John Brown’s Body” reflects its suitability for marching. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine singing the extravagant words of “Battle Hymn” while marching; for that matter, it would seem unlikely that your average Union soldier would sing such words even when sitting around the campfire.25 The dissemination of these lyrics also shows a significant difference in reception. “Battle Hymn” gained much of its success through publication in major city periodicals, broadsides, and sheet music.26 Broadsides were popular with and available to the masses, whereas as sheet music was directed toward the upper-classes. In both situations, however, the consumers were primarily urban. Soldiers in the field had little access to these sources.27 The two most likely sources for soldiers to learn music, specifically lyrics, were from songsters and through aural dissemination.28 The lyrics to “Battle Hymn” did not appear in songsters until at least halfway through the war, therefore it is likely that a great many soldiers did not even know the lyrics.29
Such concerns lead to a consideration of the intended use of these songs. Many songs during the Civil War functioned as little more than propaganda, and even then served to profit the publishers as much as they promoted popular support for the war.30 This must be taken into consideration when evaluating the social standing and aesthetic content of these songs. “Dixie’s Land” and “John Brown’s Body” had little pretension when created, serving as popular entertainment and as a marching song respectively. Only later were they appropriated as propaganda, which undoubtedly impacts their future aesthetic reception. This is equally true of the tunes’ modern reception, as this music has achieved patriotic status, directly affecting how people today hear and judge the music. The lyrics to the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and the revised version of “Dixie” clearly reveal a more political agenda. As the war progressed such songs certainly grew to represent national pride in both a positive and negative way. Upon leaving the city of Atlanta burning in his wake, General William T. Sherman said: “Never before or since have I heard the chorus of ‘Glory Glory Hallelujah’ done with more spirit or in better harmony of time and place.”31 On the other hand, notable abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was heard to exclaim “Only listen to that—in Charleston’s streets!” on hearing a regimental band play “John Brown’s Body” after the war.32
There is also the issue of slavery that is so often associated with these songs, and of course with the war as a whole. “John Brown’s Body” counts as one of the primary anti-slavery songs due to its appended association with the abolitionist John Brown. This makes it unique as there are remarkably few songs from either side that even address the issue.33 The subject of slavery is irrelevant in the original adaptation of the song. In fact, there were some at the time who feared the anti-slavery connotations of the song were politically harmful:
The Virginians will think John Brown is worshiped as the Northern hero, in spite of all denials, if even Fletcher Webster’s Boston troops sing such a song as this. So on all hands Providence seems to be involving slavery with the war, notwithstanding the most sincere efforts of patriotism and statesmanship to keep the constitutional lines distinct.34
“Battle Hymn” approaches slavery obliquely at best. Its religious language can be interpreted in many ways, and there is only one line, “let us die to make men free,” which directly addresses slavery, and this line appears only in the fifth and final verse. “Dixie” doesn’t address slavery as an issue, though the use of black slang in praise of the South implies satisfaction with the institution of slavery. In fact, the original first stanza was dropped as it was seen to portray slave and master living happily together in “Paradise.”35
Another provocative way to evaluate the use and popularity of these songs is to examine their performance by regimental bands. These bands were of immense value to the soldiers, and the music performed in camp and at the front had a profound impact on the troops.36 These bands were also popular with civilians and provided a source of martial music for non-combatants. Northern bands played “John Brown’s Body” or “Battle Hymn” but also gave as much attention to other patriotic tunes, most notably “Yankee Doodle,” “Hail Columbia,” and “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Even when reference is made to a band performing “Battle Hymn/John Brown’s Body,” it is often referred to as “Glory Hallelujah,” making it unclear whether the song was considered to be “John Brown’s Body” or “Battle Hymn,” as both use this phrase in their chorus.
The discussion so far is not intended to refute the popularity of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” There is no denying that the song, with Howe’s lyrics, achieved a great deal of success. The question becomes: to whom was it popular, and where, and when? Evidence would indicate that “Battle Hymn” was popular with civilians, particularly those of the upper classes living in major cities. The soldiers opted for “John Brown’s Body.” “Battle Hymn” was huge in terms of sheet music sales; yet again, this quite clearly targets a specific segment of society, namely those who can afford sheet music, let alone a piano. This likewise excluded soldiers. It is after the war when “Battle Hymn” gains so much of the prominence it holds today. “Battle Hymn” was popular with civilians during and after the war; “John Brown’s Body” was popular with soldiers during the war, yet there was little call for it at the end of hostilities. In subsequent writings following the war, “Battle Hymn” gains almost mythological status. Consider this quote from 1899: “What sublime and splendid words she had written. There is in them a spirit of the old prophets.”37 Though such descriptions are not uncommon in writings after the war, it is rare to find such a description in a soldier’s writings from the field. Historiography tends to build upon itself, therefore it is not surprising that “Battle Hymn” grows in prominence in relation to the Civil War, eventually attaining the status of a cultural icon by our time, whereas “John Brown’s Body” is relegated to a subordinate position. Today “Battle Hymn” is seen as a quintessential work embodying the beliefs and ideals of the Union during the Civil War. Evidence would seem to indicate that was not the case at the time. Not only do the winners write history, it would seem they sing it as well.38
The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” has been elevated to such a degree that it is often viewed as a patriotic or American song reflecting the country as a whole. One need only listen to the marching band when the University of Georgia football team scores to hear the familiar refrain. “Dixie,” on the other hand, despite its wide popularity, still retains much of its original geographical reference; it is still a Southern song. There is a striking paradox here, as Emmett’s original version was composed for a black-faced minstrel show. From its creation there was no intention for canonical status or any form of patriotic association. It is even more ironic when one remembers that being written for a black-face minstrel show means that the song was presented in a blatantly racist environment, with black makeup and a caricature of black speech, dance, and behavior in general. Certainly this seems an unlikely birthplace for a national anthem; even for a pro-slavery South it seems unlikely that a song which mimics black culture would be seen as capturing white Southern identity. In fact, from the time of the war to today there has been some controversy as to the true origin of the music to “Dixie.” Some believe that Emmett first heard the song, or at least a close approximation of it, from black musicians.39 There were even some at the time of the war who had difficulty with the song:
It is marvelous with what wild-fire rapidity this tune of ‘Dixie’ has spread over the whole South. Considered as an intolerable nuisance when first the streets re-echoed it from the repertoire of wandering minstrels, it now bids fair to become the musical symbol of a new nationality, and we shall be fortunate if it does not impose its very name on our country. … What magic potency is there in those rude, incoherent words, which lend themselves to so many parodies, of which the poorest is an improvement on the original? What spell is there in the wild strains that it should be made to betoken the stern determination of a nation resolved to achieve its independence? I cannot tell.40
As with “Battle Hymn of the Republic” in the North, it may be argued that the popularity of “Dixie” is more musical than lyrical. Another look at regimental bands supports this. Whereas Union bands opted for various other patriotic tunes aside from that of “Battle Hymn,” Confederate bands played “Dixie” at almost any opportunity, but without words. Southern soldiers were no doubt familiar with Emmett’s original lyrics, or at least regional or regimental variants; patriotic versions were popularized in Richmond and other urban centers but were not universally known. Just as the emphasis on states’ rights prevented the Confederacy from forming a cohesive and effective federal government, so too did regional loyalties lead to a preference for music and lyrics that celebrated individual states and geographical areas. There were some songs written to celebrate national pride, and these achieved significant popularity with civilians and soldiers throughout the South. With the demise of the Confederacy such songs suffered at the hands of Northern-biased historians and failed to gain a place in the post-war canon. “The Bonnie Blue Flag” was the South’s first and probably most successful patriotic song, written in honor of one of the Confederacy’s first flags. During the war “Dixie” became a “folk” favorite, while “The Bonnie Blue Flag” attained the status of a national anthem. After the war “Dixie” managed to retain its popularity and even gain in significance; not surprisingly, “The Bonnie Blue Flag,” an anthem to a short-lived flag for a non-existent country, is consigned to the background.
The evolution of the lyrics to “Dixie” holds a certain similarity to those of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” At the outbreak of war any number of parodies emerged that are much more reflective of the war movement, the most popular of which was written by Confederate General Albert Pike.
I wish I was in de land ob cotton,
Old times dar am not forgotten,
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land whar I was born in,
Early on one frosty mornin’,
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
Den I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I’ll take my stand, To lib and die in Dixie,
Away, Away, Away down south in Dixie,
Away, Away, Away down south in Dixie.
Southrons, hear your country call you!
Up, lest worse than death befall you!
To arms! To arms! To arms! In Dixie!
Lo! all the beacon fires are lighted—
Let all heart be now united!
To arms! To arms! To arms! In Dixie!
Advance the flag of Dixie!
Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Dixie’s Land we take our stand,
And live or die for Dixie!
To arms! To arms!
And conquer peace for Dixie!
To arms! To arms!
And conquer peace for Dixie!
The imitation slang of Emmett’s version places it firmly within the minstrel tradition. Despite its blatantly racial presentation, “Dixie” (and its modernized version with “corrected” English) fits well with the music and is easy to sing. Pike’s version is much less compatible with Emmett’s notes. As was seen with “Battle Hymn” and “John Brown’s Body,” the original lyrics work much more naturally with the music, whereas the parodies come across as forced and artificial; they seem to function better as poetry than song lyrics. This can be seen in the last line of each verse.
One of the most striking anomalies surrounding “Dixie” involves its composer. It has already been noted that there has been some question as to the origin of the music, whether Emmett derived his music from neighbors or created the music himself. Emmett was an avowed Unionist, and upon hearing the use to which his song was being put exclaimed: “if I had known to what use they were going to put my song, I will be damned if I’d have written it!”41 Many in the North viewed Emmett as either a traitor or Southern sympathizer, despite the fact that he served for a time in the Federal army. To make matters even more confusing, Abraham Lincoln often stated that “Dixie” was his favorite tune.42 At the end of the war he requested “Dixie” at a shipboard party; when both the guests and musicians expressed surprise, he responded, “That tune is now Federal property.”43
Lincoln was not the only Northerner fond of the “Dixie.” Consider this account from a Confederate officer at the Battle of Fredericksburg:
We were attracted by one … of the enemy’s bands playing … their national airs … the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ ‘Hail Columbia,’ and others once so dear to us all. It seemed as if they expected some response from us; but none was given until, finally, [they] struck up ‘Dixie,’ and then both sides cheered, with much laughter.44
Such occurrences are far from uncommon and involve many of the most popular tunes from both the North and South. Lieutenant W. J. Kincheloe of the 49th Virginia described one such occurrence: “We are on one side of the Rappahannok, the Enemy on the other. … Our boys will sing a Southern song, the Yankees will reply by singing the same tune to Yankee words.”45 Though many song lyrics definitely encouraged the conflict and contributed to negative feeling between the Union and Confederacy, it would seem that the music still managed to transcend the hostilities and provide consolation to soldiers on both sides of the lines.
The impact of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “Dixie” is by no means limited to the period surrounding the Civil War. Both songs have achieved the stature of cultural icons and are used in various ways in contemporary society, from commercial soundtracks and advertising to innumerable recordings and arrangements. Not only have they maintained their musical popularity up to our time, they have retained much of their original social connotations as well. For decades after the war “Dixie” was promoted as a sacred relic for the Confederacy, with heated debates arising in response to proposals for a modification of the lyrics.46 More recently there has been similar discussion surrounding the lyrics to “Battle Hymn.”47 Both songs have also managed to create controversy as well. At the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson in January of 1965 the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” to the complaints of Southern politicians.48 “Dixie” likewise has managed to elicit both positive and negative feelings long after the war.49 In 1999 Chief Justice William H. Renquist led a sing-along of “Dixie” at a judicial conference in Virginia, sparking numerous complaints from those in attendance. Such instances reinforce not only the integral role music plays in both historical and contemporary society, but also provide yet another means for these pieces to function as pedagogical tools.
Teaching a subject like the American Civil War is a challenge to any teacher. There are innumerable complex issues that must be studied if the true nature of the conflict is to be understood. Explaining such complexities or addressing them in a text may be effective, but a personal encounter with such topics is more promising pedagogically. Source materials, particularly music of the time, provide a means for immediate access. Students already know songs such as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “Dixie” and therefore have both aesthetic and historical preconceptions. The lyrics provide a basis for discussion on countless subjects, such as musical function and intended audience; the history of their creation and reception captures much of the tension and contradiction that motivated the Civil War. As works of art each song also generates an aesthetic response that provides a personal foundation from which students can build an understanding of this complex and emotional time.
The added bonus of aesthetic participation propels classroom discussions forward and helps to strengthen the learning experience. Musical taste can be seen as too subjective for historical inquiry, yet this is only the case when the goal is to determine “like” or “dislike.” Aesthetic preference and affect can work as the starting point for discussion. How do students’ aesthetic choices impact their historical perception? Or in the case of “Dixie” and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” how might the history of each tune alter their aesthetic choice? And how are the tunes appreciated: musically, lyrically, or historically? If historical association or lyrical content proves to be the deciding factor, then this is fertile ground for discussion. Challenging the received opinion of each song is an ideal way to study how history can bias modern views. To study the Civil War, or any major historical topic, requires not only an examination of principal events and individuals, but also a consideration of those objects that require interpretation and that uncover the subjective reality of those individuals who actually participated in the conflict. What is needed is a dialogue with history; for students to communicate with people from the past, to work not only with the facts of historians, but to listen to the voice of the people, and to experience the emotional, aesthetic, and personal cataclysm that was the American Civil War.
1. Alexa Sandmann and John Ahern, “Using Literature to Study the Civil War and Reconstruction,” Middle School Journal 29/2 (November 1997): 25. Using authentic sources such as diaries and letters has been cited as satisfying recent standards set by the National Center for History in the Schools; see Russell B. Olwell, “John Kay’s Civil War: A Multimedia Internet Project for Middle School Social Studies,” Social Education 63/3 (1999): 134.
2. Sandmann and Ahern, “Using Literature,” 26. Sean McCollum also notes the personalizing effect primary sources can have for students, and, like Sandmann and Ahern, stresses literary sources; see his “The Road to Gettysburg,” Scholastic Update 130/1 (September 8,1997): 18–20.
3. Stephen Kelly, “Reflections of a Music History Teacher,” The College Music Society Newsletter (March 1992): 1–2, 4.
4. Evelyn Sweerts and Jacqui Grice, “Hitting the Right Note: How Useful is the Music of African-Americans to Historians?” Teaching History 108 (2002): 36. See also Alan Simpson, “The Usefulness of ‘Aesthetic Education’,” in Aesthetics and Arts Education, ed. R. Smith and A. Simpson (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991), 171–182.
5. “Even at their best, television and film insist on interpretations that eschew the multiplicity of meaning in behavior, creating instead a bifurcated dialogue in which actors reflect the self-evident truths that inhere to their world. Film productions, unable to explain why individuals act as they do, opt for a reflected rather than refracted sense of reality.” Michael Morrison and Robert E. May, “The Limitations of Classroom Media: Ken Burns’ Civil War Series as a Test Case,” Journal of American Culture 19 (Fall 1996): 49.
6. “… [M]usic can provide some genuine empathy for understanding how people in an historical period felt about different things.” Steven J. Mastin, “‘Now Listen to Source A’: Music and History,” Teaching History, 108 (2002): 53. Drawing upon emotional connections in teaching the Civil War is also discussed in Olwell, “John Kay’s Civil War,” 138.
7. See Alex Zukas, “Different Drummers: Using Music to Teach History,” Perspectives: Newsletter of the American Historical Association 34/6 (September 1996): 27–33.
8. Mastin, “Now Listen to Source A,” 49–54. For some very basic angles from which to approach music, see Edith Borroff, “A New Look at Teaching Music History,” Music Educators Journal 79/4 (December 1992): 41–43. The general lack of basic musical knowledge remains one of the most embarrassing failures of the American educational system, and one that could be addressed in some measure in collegiate teacher-training programs.
9. A similar discussion can be found in Richard Hickman, “A Student-Centered Approach for Understanding Art,” Art Education 47/5 (September 1994): 47–51.
10. Dennis E. Fehr effectively shows how rather complex socio-political topics can be approached though art; see his “From Theory to Practice: Applying the Historical Context Model of Art Criticism,” Art Education 47/5 (September 1994): 52–58. Mastin also provides excellent examples of the interweaving of musical and historical topics in his “Now Listen to Source A.” Mugleston discusses a variety of contemporary topics (e.g. impact on the economy, changes in the status of women, civil liberties, African-Americans) that are viable ways of linking the Civil War with today’s students; see William F. Mugleston, “Teaching the American Civil War in the Twenty-First Century,” Magazine of History 12/4 (1998): 71–73.
11. For an entertaining and insightful discussion of “emotional baggage” and contemporary patriotic music, see Arthur Schrader, “Emotional Baggage and Two National Anthems,” The Bulletin of the Society for American Music 28/2 (Summer 2002): 17–18.
12. Caroline Moseley, “Irrepressible Conflict: Differences Between Northern and Southern Songs of the Civil War,” Journal of Popular Culture 25/2 (Fall, 1991): 45–56
13. Anna Pendry, et al., “Pupil Preconceptions in History,” Teaching History 86 (January 1997): 18–20.
14. When used in conjunction with other disciplines it is surprising just how much depth can be achieved; see Rosie Turner-Bisset, “Serving-Maids and Literacy: An Approach to Teaching Literacy through History and Music,” Reading 35/1 (2001): 27–31. For an example of Civil War music in the public school social studies classroom, see Lynn Waller and William D. Edgington, “Using Songs to Help Teach the Civil War,” Social Studies 92/4 (July/August 2001): 147–150.
15. The history of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” can be found in numerous sources, including James Beale, A Famous War Song (Philadelphia: James Beale, 1894); Irwin Silber, ed. Songs of the Civil War (New York: Dover, 1960), 10–11; Charles Hamm, Yesterdays: Popular Song in American (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979), 236; Willard A. Heaps and Porter W. Heaps, The Singing Sixties: The Spirit of Civil War Days Drawn from the Music of the Times (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960); Debbie Williams Ream, “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory,” American History Illustrated 27/6 (January 1993): 60–7.
16. For the history of “Dixie,” see E. Lawrence Abel, Singing the New Nation: How Music Shaped the Confederacy, 1861–1865 (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2000), chapter 2; Hans Nathan, Dan Emmett and the Rise of Early Negro Minstrelsy (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977); Richard B. Harwell, Confederate Music (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1950), chapter 4; and Silber, Songs, 50–51.
17. George B. Bruce and Daniel D. Emmett, The Drummers’ and Fifers’ Guide (New York: Pond & Co., 1861).
18. There were twenty-two lyrical parodies of Dixie, and thirty-nine published arrangements; Heaps, Singing Sixties, 48. For some of these parodies, see Harwell, Confederate Music, 42ff. “Battle Hymn of the Republic” also suffered a number of parodies, though not as many as “Dixie;” see Heaps Singing Sixties, 52.
19. James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 259.
20. Dr. G. A. Kane, “Dixie,” Richmond Dispatch, 19 March 1893.
21. At more advanced levels the music of the Civil War can raise the issues of slavery, urban/agrarian economies and lifestyles, constitutional government, and more. For the lower grades one can examine “celebrating the cause,” “serious soldier life,” “Separation,” etc.; see Waller and Edgington, “Using Songs to Help Teach the Civil War.”
22. There is a fairly in-depth analysis of “Dixie” in Carl B. Holmerg, “Toward the Rhetoric of Music: Dixie,” The Southern Speech Communication Journal 51 (Fall, 1985): 71–82.
23. For a discussion of recent views on soldiers’ motivations, as well as their awareness of larger issues surrounding the Civil War, see Mark Grimsley’s review of recent literature in “In Not So Dubious Battle: The Motivations of American Civil War Soldiers,” The Journal of Military History 62 (January 1998): 175–88.
24. This is evident when one considers the soldiers’ letter and diaries, and has been noted by Wiley and others. See also Heaps, Singing Sixties, 235.
25. Sandra Lubbers offers an intensive analysis of the lyrics to “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” and argues that it captures a “prevailing attitude of the times”; her analysis exhibits a post-war bias, and as has been argued it is unlikely that soldiers or even rural northerners perceived such depth in the words. See her “The Edenic Myth in the Battle Hymn of the Republic,” Student Musicologists at Minnesota III (1968–69): 110–127. Apparently Julia Ward Howe herself did not believe that her lyrics fit the music all that well.
26. Broadsides were single sheets of paper printed with lyrics to popular songs.
27. Wiley notes that “new” music had little impact on Southern soldiers; see Bell Irvin Wiley, The Life of Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1943), 152.
28. Songsters were small, published collections of popular lyrics.
29. An examination of soldiers’ writings and songsters reveals that “John Brown’s Body” was more popular than “Battle Hymn of the Republic” with Union soldiers; see Bell Irvin Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1952), 159–160.
30. “Thus, ‘popular song’ refers to song in actual use by many, and also to pieces prescribed for the populace by aesthetic entrepreneurs.” Paul Charosh, “Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song,” American Music 15/4 (Winter 1997): 461. An easy and effective way to evaluate the use of printed music as propaganda is to study the title pages. Many have drawings with blatant patriotic or political themes that have nothing to do with the song.
31. Shelby Foote, The Civil War, a Narrative, Vol. III: Red River to Appomattox (New York: Vintage Books, 1986), 640.
32. Foote, Civil War, 970.
33. Moseley, “Irrepressible Conflict,” 53.
34. Chicago Tribune, quoted in Ream, “Mine Eyes have Seen the Glory,” 62.
35. John A. Simpson, “Shall We Change the Words of ‘Dixie’?” Southern Folklore Quarterly 45 (1981): 22.
36. Kenneth E. Olson, Music and Musket: Bands and Bandsmen of the American Civil War (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981); James A. Davis, “Regimental Bands and Morale in the American Civil War,” Journal of Band Research 38/2 (Spring 2003): 1–21.
37. L. Banks, Immortal Songs of Camp and Field (Cleveland: 1899), 165, quoted in Lubbers, Edenic Myth, 114. Historians and commentators were and are no doubt attracted to the rhetoric of Howe’s lyrics; it is easier to color a text with a phrase like “Mine eyes have seen the glory” as opposed to “lies a-mouldering in the grave.”
38. The subsequent popularity of the “Battle Hymn” owes much to proponents such as Bishop McCabe; see William E. Ross, “The Singing Chaplain: Bishop Charles Cardwell McCabe and the Popularization of the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic,” Methodist History 28/1 (October 1989): 22–32. The possibility for cultural manipulation is addressed in Iain Anderson, “Reworking Images of a Southern Past: The Commemoration of Slave Music After the Civil War,” Studies in Popular Culture 19/2 (1996): 167–183
39. Howard L. Sacks and Judith R. Sacks, Way Up North in Dixie: A Black Family’s Claim to the Confederate Anthem (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993).
40. Henry Hotze, “Three Months in the Confederate Army: The Tune of Dixie,” The Index I (June 26, 1862): 140; quoted in Harwell Confederate Music, 43. Hotze was the Confederate propaganda agent in London. For future portrayals of the South in song, see Earl F. Bargainnier, “Tin Pan Alley and Dixie: The South in Popular Song,” Mississippi Quarterly 30/4 (1977): 527–564.
41. Nathan, Dan Emmett, 275.
42. Kenneth A. Bernard, Lincoln and the Music of the Civil War (Caldwell, Id: Caxton Printers, 1966), 13.
43. Foote, Civil War, 905–6.
44. Geoffrey C. Ward, The Civil War: An Illustrated History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990), 169.
45. Wiley, Johnny Reb, 318.
46. Simpson, “‘Dixie,” 19–40
47. North & South, 2/6 (1999). “Battle Hymn” was for a time put forward as a candidate for our national anthem.
48. Lubbers, “Edenic Myth,” 115.
49. Richard D. Starnes, “‘The Stirring Strains of Dixie’: The Civil War and Southern Identity in Haywood County, North Carolina,” The North Carolina Historical Review LXXIV/3 (July 1997): 237; see also Sacks, Way Up North, 4–5.