In your opinion is the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” meant to be a religious hymn or was it meant to be a patriotic song for the Union in the Civil War using an extended metaphor of events in the Gospel?
It was meant to be a patriotic song for the Union, based upon the earlier “John Brown’s Body,” which is based upon a religious hymn. Stowe was challenged to write better lyrics, and clearly used religious imagery.
It’s a patriotic song with heavy religious overtones. The two (hymns and patriotic songs) really aren’t mutually exclusive, but in this case I think it’s somewhat more about war than it is about religion. The basic message is “We’ll win this war because God is on our side.”
Whatever the words, the music is stirring. You will notice that simply humming or whistling this tune evokes a sense of purpose from it’s plodding cadence. It seems to have a magical quality to raise the head of the weary and focus the listener’s intent. It was often suggested as the national anthem, but perhaps found to be devisive or overly militant.
I think that is the basic quality of a ‘march’, which BHotR is. Like the theme to Superman or Indiana Jones, both marches, both will evoke a sense of purpose and forward movement.
Everything the article says is technically correct. And I have no problem enthusiastically singing it in church. It can be debated how wisely & morally the Civil War was fought by both sides, but bringing an end to slavery was a righteous cause. I am greatly suspicious of these Reformed Christians who have some nostalgia for an imagined antebellum Calvinistic idyllic South vs a materialistic Unitarian North. And it’s a cause for debate in U.S. Reformed circles also.
I don’t think it is. Not all marches have that triplet eighth-quarter feel throughout the melody. A lot of them need the drums to feel like a march. Those you mention are good, however.