Believe it or not, there are still people in the South (Dixie)who strenuously object to singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic under any circumstances. I doubt there are any Catholics of this sort, but there sure are a number of Protestants.
In college I knew some Louisiana Catholics who took issue with it as well. Just remember which side the Holy Father sympathized with.
Not the best article, but thought-provoking:
http://www.catholicism.org/catholicism-south.htmlThat the Holy Father sympathized with an unjustly treated prisoner is not surprising. That the nuns and the Bishop of Charleston would be concerned for their local flock is not surprising. That Bishop Lynch would undertake a diplomatic mission in search of peace is not surprising either.
To extrapolate that into siding with the Confederacy is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps there is a reason why recent Pontiffs have discouraged clergy involvement in politics?
-------------------------------------------------------
The show at Stone Mountain Park, (the mountain is a true marvel that everyone should see), is not surprising. That the Confederate cabal is
"agin' it" is also not surprising, but is very sad.
The magnanimous terms of Appomattox, issued by General "Unconditional Surrender" Grant on that Palm Sunday, were viewed as remarkable by even the Confederates. The officers were allowed to take their horses and weapons home. What kind of victor allows his opponent to walk away
armed and riding the vehicle of war?It is because General Grant and his boss, President Lincoln, and his subordinate, Gereral William T. Sherman, wanted to build a lasting peace. The General ordered his men to stop cheering when the end of the war was announced because "the rebels are our countrymen again".
Alas, the assasination of President Lincoln on Good Friday brought to office the weak Tennessean, President Andrew Johnson, who could not muster the political strength to maintain a just peace.
When the Confederates in North Carolina under Gen. Johnston surrendered to Gen. Sherman, Sherman offered generous terms and offered to negotiate for surrender of all the Confederates. The War Department ordered harsher terms imposed, and the post war poisoning of the well began.
After Davis was captured, it was pretty clear that he would suffer for his politics. Interestingly, the Justice who let him go, Salmon P. Chase, had been appointed by President Lincoln.
---------------------------------------------------------
To reflect further, if the Confederacy had achieved independence over the economic issues dividing North from South,
including but not limited to the price of labor, what other issues would have been used to divide the remaining states?
It is likely that California and the west would have separated on the basis of, say, the price or coinage of gold, or other mineral wealth.
Utah would have separated on the issue of polygamy.
Alaska would be the outpost of the Russian Monarchists (much like the Chinese Nationalists went to Taiwan).
Hawaii would have become a British or Japanese colony.
The remnant of the "United States" would be weak and unable to contribute much to the world, while waiting for other states to come up with reasons to leave.
-------------------------------------------------------
What would the consequences have been if the USA was unable to defend France (and international shipping) in 1917?
What would the consequences be if Mexico had joined with Germany to make war in Arizona? A Catholic Empire in North America? Not likely. Ask Father Miguel Pro and his companions.
What would the absence of America have meant to the peoples of Europe during the Nazi years? Would the Nazi years include 2008?
What would the absence of America have meant to the peoples of Europe during the Soviet years? Ask the Ukrainians.
Would the Phillipines be free?
---------------------------------------------------------
You can guess that I have little sympathy for the Confederates, except to recognize individual injustices done by those holding power. I remember reading something that started "power corrupts... "
The freedom of many people in the world rests on the shoulders of the soldiers of the "march to the sea" through Georgia in 1864.
--------------------------------------------------------
To paraphrase Father Serge's rendition of the Battle Hynm, here goes my contribution, from the soldiers' point of view:
The fires of Atlanta light our way across the land,
The families of the freedmen march with us along the way.
The City of Savannah is your Christmas gift this year,
And we are marching home!
Glory, glory, Billy Sherman!
Glory, glory, Billy Sherman!
Glory, glory, Billy Sherman!
Carolina's next in view!Bet it won't make the Hymnal.
E Pluribus Unum!
God Bless America!
End of Rant!
However, I would agree that the Stuarts have a stronger claim to the throne. My family fought in a war 200 or so years ago to get away from all that nonsense, so I have little sympathy or use for any of them. As I have said before, if the British people want to spend vast sums of money so this family of mediocre people can live in splendor and perform ceremonial functions, it's their money. To me it seems a waste. But I must admit I did admire the character of the Queen Mother. She was a remarkable lady.
