Talk:John Brown's Body

John Brown wasn't the dead deputy in Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff".

John Brown's Body is also a ska/reggae/jam band.

Actually (not that it has anything to do with this article) John Brown was the sheriff, as in "Sheriff John Brown always hated me." 151.205.184.111 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I rock

Previous poster: just make a disambiguation page.

I moved this to Wikisource! I Rock!

Mark Steyn Link

• An article on "John Brown's Body and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" by Mark Steyn

This link doesn't seem to say anything about this song so I have removed it. If anyone knows where the link should point can they put it back?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijarvis (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Steyn's website used to be updated weekly or thereabouts with different content at the same URLs. (I loathe websites that do that.) However, his website has been redesigned and now has stable URLs. Furthermore, he's recently posted the article about this song, so I've linked to it at the new URL (while doing a larger edit). Cheers, CWC 16:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing verses?

So there is a version with one fully worked out verse, like so:

He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true, / And he frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through, / They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew, / But his soul is marching on!

but the rest of the verses are one liners? This is disappointing, I had encountered the worked out verse in a John Buchan book years ago and thought I had a good idea of what some of the other worked out verses were likely to be. And still, I have to say that a single worked out verse is unlikely, I would still bet that the version given on the site is a degenerated version of a worked out song. I would imagine one verse went something like:

It was down in bloody Kansas where the slavers rode abroad
He was called to be a soldier in the army of the Lord
He smote their haughty power with his terrible quick sword
And his soul goes marching on.

Similarly "grave" rhymes with "brave" and "slave"; a fully worked out first verse almost writes itself. If that is obvious to me I doubt it was any less obvious in the 1860s, when verse writing was much more common. I think there must be a lost fully worked out abolitiionist version, probably the original version, revisionist theories about the good-natured Sergeant Brown notwithstanding.
They hanged John Brown from a sour apple tree
As they hanged the Liberator long ago at Calvary
He died a holy martyr so that all men would be free
And his soul goes marching on!

To a Christian hanging immediately suggests the Crucifixion especially hanging from a tree, the cross has been described as a "tree" since the Middle Ages; and if the Christion happens to be also a verse-maker then "hanged from a tree" brings "Calvary" to mind almost automatically, its a good strong rhyme. Like "free", also a natural assocaition in the context. Oh no, I do not think we should be misled by Sergeant Brown. he is a distraction of the nature of "Ned Ludd" Surely, it must have been something like that. Jeremy (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism Overempahsised

I'm very unhappy about this page. The revisionist view, on the face of it ridiculous, is given far too much emphasis. Some fact tag are needed. I don't know what tag one puts up for "worthless citation" but I think a few of those are also needed. Jeremy (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not missing verses after all, and revisionist argument clarified

The full William Weston Patton song from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/brownbody.html: John Brown by William W. Patton

Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave, While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save; But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave, His soul is marching on.

John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,/ And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save;/ Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave,/ His soul is marching on.

He captured Harper’s Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,/ And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled thru and thru;/ They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew,/ But his soul is marching on.

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,/ Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,/ And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,/ For his soul is marching on.

The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,/ On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue./ And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed they mean to do,/ For his soul is marching on.

Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may,/ The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,/ For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,/ And his soul is marching on.

I think this song, written October 1861 and published December 1861, should be included on the site. The site I took this from (UMKC School of Law) also gives a simpler version of the song, and links to a pbs site on the history of the song which makes clear that the original teasing of Seageant Brown was indeed about sharing the same name as the abolitionist; the original song was thus by this account at least just as much about the abolitionist as Sergeant Brown. And it is still not clear whether or not the song was pre-existing as commonsense would suggest. Jeremy (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Bishop

In the The Battle Hymn of the Republic article the song is credited to one Thomas Bishop. Who was this Thomas Bishop? See the following site which asserts that Bishop wrote about the abolitionist, sadly doesn't give his original words: http://www.providenceforum.org/default.aspx?pid=24

"History of the Battle Hymn of the Republic

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1853 a preacher, William Steffe, wrote a hymn, a camp meeting song evangelists called a “good shouter”. It went: “Say brothers will you meet us on Canaan’s happy shore. To watch the Jordan roar.” The melody caught on but the words didn’t. Sailors and soldiers made up their own words to the tune, upsetting Steffe. He had been trying to glorify God in his song and others turned it into a distasteful bar song. He thought himself, and his labor for the Lord, a failure.

Then, a visitor from Vermont, Thomas Bishop picked up the tune while visiting the South. He returned to the North to join an infantry battalion stationed in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Soon after, abolitionist John Brown made his attack on Harper’s Ferry in 1859. Bishop decided to dramatize that event in song. He put together a marching song for the Tiger Battalion to the tune Steffe created: “John Brown’s body lies a moulderin’ in the grave. But his soul goes marching on.” Steffe would not have liked it – a Northerner using a melody written by a Southerner to arouse the anti-slave camps in the North....."

etc. This account has its own problems and doesn't immediately strke one as scholarly, but it also doesn't seem to be based on nothing. 203.87.64.23 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Credible story of how Thomas Brigham Bishop wrote John Brown- source Time 1 July 1935

I found the following in the Time archive: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770050,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

It seems to be the true story (it give publishing details of Bishop's song) and also contains the checkable claim that Bishop wote "When Johnny Comes Marching Home". It doesn't cedit Steffe, I'd guess that Bishop's tune was close enough to Steffe's to be assimilated. But that's just a guess. But hey, so much for the revisionist nonsense.. Of course no reason to doubt that the boys did give good-natured Sergeant Brown a hard time.... Jeremy (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Time article:

"Three-quarters of a century ago in Portland. Maine, a fierce form of religious fervor overtook a hardshelled Yankee named Andrew J. Johnson. Seeking out his young brother-in-law, Johnson accused him of writing songs in league with the Devil and, thrusting out his self-righteous chest, shouted: "I am bound to be a soldier in the army of the Lord! Glory! glory, Hallelujah!" Thomas Brigham Bishop, a farm-boy from the village of Wayne, jokingly set his brother-in-law's tirade to music. As popular as any popular song, Glory, Glory, Hallelujah was sung a few evenings later by Andrew Johnson, soon became the big camp-meeting hymn throughout the State of Maine.

When John Brown was hanged at Charles Town in 1859 for his Harper's Ferry raid, Thomas Brigham Bishop happened to be in nearby Martinsburg. Taking paper & pencil he dashed off the crude verses of John Brown's Body Lies a-Mould' ring in the Grave, set them to the music of his Glory, Glory, Hallelujah. The song was published by John Church of Cincinnati in 1861. Union soldiers, at the outbreak of the Civil War, picked it up as a marching song, added the "Jeff Davis" verse, carried it to Washington. There in 1862 after a great review across the Potomac Julia Ward Howe heard the Federal troopers singing it. Early the next morning, with John Brown's Body running through her mind, she wrote the words of The Battle Hymn of the Republic to Bishop's tune.

Despite the fact that he provided the music for one of the patriotic anthems of all time, the name of Thomas Brigham Bishop has been practically forgotten in the annals of U. S. music. To see that he gets his just due from history is the purpose of an elderly New Yorker named John James MacIntyre, now a publicity man for the Cunard White Star Line, once a struggling songwriter and publisher whom Bishop befriended. This week marks the 100th anniversary of Thomas Bishop's birth. Loyal John MacIntyre refused to let the occasion pass without telling his friend's life-story:

"Down East" in the 1850's the budding songwriter was regarded as a rapscallion. When he might have been brooding over crops, he was strumming a mandolin, playing at country dances, barnstorming in minstrel shows. During the Civil War he commanded a Negro detachment called Company G. One day he heard a dusky private muttering, "Shoo, fly, don't bother me." Thereupon Bishop wrote another song which every soldier sang:

Shoo, fly, don't bother me

I belong to Company G. . . .

After the war the songwriter from Maine plugged on at music. He wrote When Johnny Comes Marching Home, Sweet Evalina, If Your Foot Is Pretty, Show It. He toured for a time as cornetist in Pat Gilmore's Band. Then, when middleaged, his Yankee blood asserted itself and he turned to banking." ....etc

Bhugh's Rewrite

....has immeasurably improved this article. Its still not quite on the money however. If you look at the Library of Congress early manuscripts of the lyrics you will see that they are all close variants, one proudly claims to be the "original" and the others including the only dated one (1861) agree with it apart from small details. This does not agree with situation of free variation and diffuse composition presently described by the article. The "Jeff Davis" verse is said by MacIntyre to be a later addition (and the same would presumably go for the 3 cheers verse), and what is left is consistent as a single conception, ie John Brown has just died and is marching to heaven, to join the heavenly host and become a "soldier in the army of the lord". Consider the "pet lambs" verse, it belongs to this context. A merry funeral song. And this is consistent with the song being written in 1859 when Brown was hanged. And the article at once identifies the Brown tune with the Canaan tune and points out their substantial difference. Can't have it both ways here. I still reckon the Bishop theory is looking good. Jeremy (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read George Kimball's article here and Annie Randall's here. If you read those, perhaps along with some of the referenced articles in Randall's article, you'll start to have a better idea of the milieu we're talking about here and many of your questions will be answered. You bring up a lot of good points and if the article addresses and explains those issues it will undoubtedly be improved.

On the flip side, I'm concerned about accepting the claims about Bishop wholeheartedly, because there do not seem to be any primary documents from anywhere close to the time of the song's composition. They all seem to be 2nd or 3rd hand and from 50 years or more after the song was written. As Kimball explains (p. 376) all sorts of people stepped forward later on to claim credit and priority. To advance beyond a mere claim, you really need to have first-hand documentary evidence, not merely a claim that has been repeated in various media outlets many years after the fact.

If documentation can be located and included in the article notes then that changes things dramatically. But so far the documentation for the claims made on behalf of Bishop is weak and those claims are not well substantiated at all. Bhugh (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"And the article at once identifies the Brown tune with the Canaan tune and points out their substantial difference. Can't have it both ways here." Quite the contrary, no musicologist would say that a slight rhythmic variation to a melody made in order to fit in some extra syllables, makes it a "different melody". The most you could possibly say is that it is a simple rhythmic variation of the same melody. One of the neat things about the evolution of the "Glory Hallelujah" tune is that you can see this process at work as you go from the very simple words of "Say, Brothers" through the initial John Brown words, through some of the more complex words. Each succeeding step adds a few more of those dotted rhythms in order to add in a few more syllables (culminating in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, where pretty much every rhythm has become dotted in order to cram the maximum possible syllables into each line). But throughout all this, the melodic profile remains amazingly unchanged--the same note comes at the same place on the same beat. The chorus, of course, remains essentially unchanged in all of these versions, so the interesting effect you arrive at in the Battle Hymn is that the verse and the chorus both have the "same" melody, just with that simple rhythmic variation to allow for the greater/lesser number of words per line in verse vs. chorus. Bhugh (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you look at the Library of Congress early manuscripts of the lyrics" --Can you help me out with where you're searching & what search terms at the LOC? Or a link to the some of the interesting results? I'm not finding much there that is helpful, but what you're finding sounds quite interesting . . . 68.92.155.114 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I used the "Search All Collections" option taking me to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/ and use John Brown Song and also John Brown's Body (without bracketing)for search terms. I get (all with same lyrics or near enough):

the (undated) version currently referenced on the page: John Brown's original marching song. Tune--Brothers, will you meet me. Johnson, Song Publisher, &c., Phila. [n. d.]IMPRINT Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. H. Johnson RELATED NAME(S) Publisher: J. H. Johnson SHELF LOCATION Civil War Song Sheets, Series 1, Volume 2

the only dated one, I think, a version mentioned by Kimball in his account: John Brown. Origin, Fort Warren. Music arranged by C. B. Marsh. Published by C. S. Hall, 256 Main Street, Charleston, Mass. Entered, according to the act of Congress. in the year 1861, By C. S. Hall, in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. Marsh, C. B. IMPRINT Charlestown, Massachusetts: C. S. Hall, 1861 RELATED NAME(S) Publisher: C. S. Hall SHELF LOCATION American Song Sheets, Series 1, Volume 5

one of the undated ones but apaprently contemporary: Glory hally, hallelujah! or The John Brown song! Hip, hip, hip hurrah! ! Published by Horace Partridge, No. 27 Hanover Street, Boston. [n. d.]IMPRINT Horace Partridge RELATED NAME(S) Publisher: Horace Partridge SHELF LOCATION American Song Sheets, Series 1, Volume 3

another undated song, handwritten (with same lyrics) SHELF LOCATION American Song Sheets, Series 1, Volume 5

another undated song from publisher Charles Magnus on the hand-coloured songsheet shelves

another undated one from H De Marsan American Song Sheets, Series 1, Volume 5

published again (several) undated by one J. Wrigley SHELF LOCATION Civil War Song Sheets, Series 1, Volume 2 J. WRIGLEY. Publisher, of Songs, Ballad's, and Toy Books, Conversation, Age, and Small Playing Cards, Alphabet Wood Blocks, Valentines, Motto Vorses, and Cut Paper &c. No. 27 Chatham Street (OPPOSITE CITY HALL PARK) NEW YORK

also a songsheet of the refrain only dated 1861 and a songsheet using the Paston words.

A very stable set of lyrics in other words. I certainly haven't exhausted the resources in the library, including an unrelated new claim by one Frank Jerome to have written the song! I repeat my point about the stability of these accounts of the early lyrics. As for the Bishop claim, I have not found and I guess now won't find online a copy of Bishop's John Church version. But I would suppose it would be reprinted in the MacIntyre book, which is listed on Amazon but no copies presently available. The KImball account was published in the post-reconstruction era, when abolitionist sentiment was a bit of an embarrassment, ins't that right? Jeremy (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also in the "Guide to the William R. and Louise Fielder Sheet Music Collection" at http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=tf9870072n&chunk.id=c02-1.8.5.25.3&brand=oac I find the following info: in Box 32 Folder 7 there is a copy of: John Brown song, or, Glory hallelujah, with nw and revised words Chicago :Root & Cady, 1861. New York :William Hall & Son , 1861 Also published by Firth, Pond & Co., New York ; Russell & Tolman, Boston ; S. Brainard & Co., Cleveland ; H. N. Hempsted, Milwaukee. I imagine that is the Paston words again.

Kimball btw gives late May 1861, Boston, as the first appearance of the John Brwon Song songsheets on the streets. He comments that a couple of verses were added at the time of publication. It is interseting to see that there are a number points of clear agreement betwenn Kimball and Bishop despite their major differences: first published 1861, tune from a pre-existing hymn, was a marching song already before printing, at least one verse added after song substantially created, a partially humourous source for the song (in the Bishop story good-natured mockery of his brother-in-law, and of course the joke about Sgt john Brown in the Kimball version). I think the article is able to say that the song appeared in print in 1861. At the moment I have no reference to show that Bishop's version of the words was the same as the common six verse song although common sense suggests they were. When this is shown I think there will be a good case fro strengthening the claims of Bishop. The first 4 verses hang together, they are consistent with Bishop's claim that they were written in 1859 specifically as a response to Brown's hanging. They clearly show Brown on his way to heaven. Kimball's version makes little sense, not saying he was dishonest. Jeremy (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

who was "John Brown" in this song?

In the John Brown disambiguation article and in the The Battle Hymn of the Republic article, both make mention that the John Brown in the song is not John Brown (abolitionist). This article, however, doesn't even address the issue of whether it was about anyone else. If it is correct that the song was originally about someone else, it should be mentioned. If, instead, this is a "common myth/misunderstanding", it should at least be mentioned here and explain the misunderstanding, much like Samuel Mudd mentioned the incorrect etymology of the phrase "your name is mud". Wrs1864 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that it is about a different John Brown than the abolitionist, but that it is about the very fact that this other lesser-known John Brown had the same name as the famous John Brown. The humor of those original John Brown Song verses comes from the fact that they apply equally to the famous John Brown and the unknown John Brown.

"This article, however, doesn't even address the issue of whether it was about anyone else." Actually a good part of the article is about this very issue--that it's actually about two different John Browns at once. See second paragraph of the intro and the section History of the Text of "John Brown's Body" Bhugh (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I missed that line in the lead, but having re-read the article, I can find no other mention. There was nothing in the history section. As per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary, it is not a place to introduce important "facts". I see no references saying that there was any intent of humor about the two different people, so I've added "fact" tags. I have also copied the text from the The Battle Hymn of the Republic article to make the history section clearer. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research issue with Kimball vs Bishop accounts of creation of the song

?"The humor of those original John Brown Song verses comes from the fact that they apply equally to the famous John Brown and the unknown John Brown."?? Except of course that they don't! Not a sausage. The Kimball version is a crock, obviously, not saying that soldiers didn't joke about and tease a sergeant John Brown. Why am I so confident? Because I sometimes write songs myself, not good ones that anyone is likely to hear about, but songs nevertheless, and I can pick a consistent theme when I see it. The first four verses of the John Brown Song have a consistent theme which fits Bishop's account. John Brown is recently dead and marching to heaven, leaving earth where all effective action is stained by moral ambiguity "to be a soldier in the army of the lord". He carries his knapsack on his back because he is a soldier of course but also I think because until he reaches heaven he carries the weight of his sins. His "pet lambs" meet him on the way because he had been in the wool trade (is that true of the sergeant?) but also because they are symbols of innocence and his journey to heaven involves confronting his life on earth in its good and bad aspects. The imagery drawn on is I think that of Pilgrim's Progress which which I imagine Bishop would have been familiar.......I'll be interested to see how the discussion develops and learn more. Jeremy (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy, you have very strong opinions about this subject, obviously, but the trouble is the sources you favor are further removed from the facts (by decades) and far more suspect than the one you say "is a crock". It's fine if you think it's a crock but you really need to provide evidence--better evidence--than Kimball's if you want to refute Kimball's account. So far you have not come even close to doing so.

Your two sources for Bishop's account of composing both the words and music are (1) A non-scholarly 2004 compilation of civil war era music which does not even claim to be doing primary research but is simply quoting information from other secondary sources and (2) a Time Magazine article written 65 years after the fact--and some three decades after Bishop's death--quoting a friend of Bishop's who "remembers" talking to Bishop about a wide variety of things.

These just are not credible sources, period.

Even worse, your source #1 is almost certainly not independent but is simply based on other sources that all ultimately trace back to the claims by by Bishop's friend in the 1935 Time article and other sources. So your two sources are not even really independent--everything merely traces back to the claims made by Bishop's friend some 30 years after Bishop's death.

What's more, Bishop was a professional musician, composer, and band leader with many music publications to his name. There is **no way** he composed "John Brown" and then published his first editions of the piece (which already by contemporary reports was popular and something of a local "hit" before it was even published) and did it anonymously. Look at **any** of his other publications--they have his name splashed all over them, precisely because he was a composer and musician trying hard to establish his name and keep it before the public.

If Bishop had really composed John Brown out of whole cloth (and "Say, Brothers" and "Johnny Comes Marching Home," as well--MacIntyre is not shy in his claims, even implying Bishop has his hand in Stephen Foster's "Swanee River"!), there would be no doubt about it whatsoever because he would have loudly and clearly made that fact clear from Day 1, including the original publication of the sheet music and from that day forward. So it becomes very difficult to explain why there are documented copies of "Say, Brothers" not listing Bishop as an author, that pre-date 1860, and also what appear to be the earliest printed versions of the John Brown Song, published by C. S. Hall, also do not list Bishop's authorship anywhere. This simply does not square with Bishop's practice in publishing his many other pieces of sheet music, many of which can be found in the Library of Congress's collection.

So the whole "Bishop composed John Brown (and incidentally the hymn tune as well--even though it appears in numerous hymn collections and never credited to Bishop) and published it but completely anonymously and then horrible other people came along and stole the credit but then 65 years later a good friend of Bishop's (who just happened to be an impresario of sorts) came along to clear the air and straighten the whole matter out" just really does not add up at all.

Conclusion--if Bishop is mentioned at all in the article it really needs to be in the context of all the various versions, revisions, and claims to authorship that were made once John Brown became popular. Without far more direct proof, Bishop's claim doesn't stand above any of these others in any way.

Accepting Bishop as the primary author without far, far better proof really does qualify as original research.

You disparage Kimball's account--pointing out (correctly) that it was written some decades after the events--but you neglect the strengths of Kimball's account, which is referenced repeatedly in the notes to the article and is available online now for anyone to read and judge for themselves:

1. Kimball's article is written by an eyewitness and participant in the events he describes.

2. Kimball's article contains a detailed and internally consistent account, with many details that can be objectively checked for accuracy, and references to many other people who participated in the events--a number of whom would still have been alive at the time of publication.

3. The article shows original documents, artifacts, and other strong proofs dating to the original time of publication. These do not (and by their nature, cannot) prove in detail every statement that Kimball makes. And as with any eyewitness account written years after the event, the possibility of false recall or mis-statement must be considered. Nevertheless the evidence shown in the article clearly supports the gist of Kimball's story. And unfortunately for your position, you are not quibbling with the details of Kimball's story but need to overturn the gist of it. The evidence simply is not on your side.

4. Kimball's article was published in a well known, well-respected journal (compared with the source you prefer for Bishop's claim, from Time Magazine, which is not even pretending to do research into the composition of John Brown's Body, but is simply reporting what Bishop's friend told the reporter--it's a human interest story written by a journalist, not careful research presented by a scholar).

5. Although published about 30 years after the events it describes, Kimball's account was still published 4 and a half **decades** earlier than the source you prefer to give primacy (ie an article in Time Magazine dating from 1935).

6. The points made by Kimball are backed up by actual scholarly sources (ie Randall and Stutler--see the notes to the article) and each of the points you disagree with can be backed up to specific information in those scholarly articles. Whereas the evidence you like to cite to the contrary is more often from song compilations--well known for copying reference information from other secondary sources far removed from the original--and then of course, Time Magazine from 1935 and your gut feeling about how songs are written.

In short it is a case of well documented conclusions directly backed by scholarly research and primary sources vs. unverified claims, hunches, and original research.

Bhugh (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy wrote: "Why am I so confident? Because I sometimes write songs myself, not good ones that anyone is likely to hear about, but songs nevertheless, and I can pick a consistent theme when I see it."

A major part of your contribution to the article--which is all toned to tearing down the claims of Kimball, which you don't like, and building up those of Bishop, which you do--is based on exactly this feeling you have.

And based on your statement, this feeling is clearly original research.

It is fine if you have that hunch. But before you can base a Wikipedia article on your hunch you have to find actual, scholarly, verifiable sources that say what you think (hope/wish) they should say.

Unless and until you can find those sources (and again, a 1935 Time Magazine article and 2004 non-scholarly music compilation don't even come close to qualifying) you need to keep your original research and hunches out of the article.

For more info see the No original research page.

Bhugh (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Jeremy wrote: "I can pick a consistent theme when I see it."

Not to beat a dead horse here, but it has been thrashing around so long it just really needs to be thoroughly beaten until thoroughly dead--

Even the original, simple lyrics of the "John Brown Song" clearly have a consistent theme. You seem to believe this is somehow contradicted by the oral/folk way of writing and transmitting songs and lyrics.

However, you're just wrong. (Sorry to be blunt--I just don't know how else to say it.)

In fact the Kimball article details at some length the process that led to the creation of the lyrics. This sort of process was quite typical of the time and period--a fact that can be backed up by a careful reading of the Stutler and Randall articles as well as the entire musicological literature dealing with this period.

In short (as detailed in the Kimball article) the soldiers had a series of sayings they had developed as a group, around the idea that their comrade had the same name as the famous John Brown.

These were worked into various verses to a hymn tune many of them knew already.

This was done spontaneously and no doubt on an ad-hoc basis as different people thought of different variations and ideas that fit.

However (and more to your point) these are not by any means uneducated ignorant rubes. The battalion had an organized glee club that met and practiced regularly. So they had people who knew both music and the finer points of literature.

So the initial spontaneous jokes and music-making are refined and even practiced knowingly. Undoubtedly things were refined in this process.

What's more when they realized it was a bit of a popular hit they had a group of people (**literary** people, chosen particularly for that characteristic) who worked over the lyrics, selected the best, undoubtedly changed and refined them as necessary, and readied them for publication.

And in doing so one of the things they **specifically** did was choose the particular verses to print. And being "literary" sorts you can just bet they were thinking exactly like you, the song composer, does--they were looking to put together verses that exactly did fit together and have a sort of unifying theme.

So, abracadabra and presto, there is the problem solved, easily and logically. And you don't have to take **my** word for it--just read (carefully! carefully!!) the original article by Kimball where he explains it all.

Once published (and re- re- re-published many times soon thereafter) of course those original lyrics as originally written were copied quite verbatim from publication to publication (thus the "great stability of the text" you like to make a big deal of. Of COURSE it's stable--that's why they call it printing!)

At the same time, many other people (and groups . . . ) are working on their own versions of the lyrics, which most often incorporate some of the ideas and even phrases of the original but expand on them in some way--by adding more versions, more lines per verse, etc etc etc. Then (some of) these are published as well, meaning they are now "set in stone" and "stable" as well.

So by putting these two processes together, you can (amazingly!) have **both** stability of text **and simultaneously** a folk-like spontaneous oral adaptation and continual mutation and updating of the text. This is even seen down to the present day with lyrics ranging from "John Brown's baby has a pimple on his bum" to "We'll hang all the Thomians on the cadju-puhulang tree" to "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school".

See, whenever people sing a song they know by heart they can and will change and adapt the lyrics as they feel the urge. This is the oral or folk-like tradition. Yet most everyone even in the 1860s was capable of taking a pen and writing their creation down and so now it is written and "stable".

This is in a nutshell the dichotomy between "oral" and "written" that you seem to have such a hard time understanding. It isn't hard at all--it is very obviously a combination of the two processes and one of things that really neat about the John Brown/Battle Hymn corpus of texts is you can just look at those texts and see right there how they developed and mutated and inter-related and took ideas from one another and so on.

But again--you don't have to take my word for it. It's all there in black and white right in Kimball's original article. Bhugh (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oi, Bhugh; your interesting comments have just turned up on my watchlist, regarding a subject I haven't much thought of for a while. No need to apologise for being blunt....it does save time, ( although possibly dropping the tone a little might also save time? but I'm not fussed...)

I take your point about the weakness of my referencing, my only defence is that it was a lot better than the referencing I found when I got to the article! Have a look at the history and you will see. I do think however that you downgrade the importance of MacIntyre. He wasn't just "interviewed by a journalist", he knew Bishop and he wrote a book on the subject....it is true that he mistakenly attributes "Johnny" to Bishop, so he isn't infallible. As to "Swannee River" I think you will find that Bishop claimed to have transcribed the song for Foster. Is this not credible? My referencing for widespread belief in Bishop's authorship could have been a lot better than it was; the standards I found in place were very much lower than the standards you are now rightfully applying.

"Say Brothers" is recorded before 1861, but not actually very long before 1861, is it? I'm pressed for time right now but my recollection is it was published only a very few years before the war.

I had never heard of Bishop before I looked at this article, your assumption that I come with a pro-Bishop cause is unfounded. The article should record that both claims have been made and that neither is proven; obviously my impressions and hunches etc should not go in the article, but it is legitmate to use them as heuristic tools.....I referred to them on this page in the interests of transparency. But it is obvious enough that the revisionist view of the meaning of the song serves a certain political agenda. If you go to the "John Brown" talk page you will see how controversial topic John Brown is....among North Americans. (I think you will find that in most of the rest of the world a martyr to the cause of abolishing chattel slavery is not all that controversial). You make a big play of the lateness of Macintyre's book, but it is doubtful how significant the difference between him and Kimball is in that regard, a few decades doesn't mean much to the middle-aged....Kimball's comments were published in the 1890s, a the height of the backlash against the abolition of slavery, right?

In fact, there is quite a big area of possible accomdation between the Kimball version and the Bishop/MacIntyre version. There is a quite different account I found in the archives which should probably be noted in the article.

Speaking of hunches and original research, what status do you assign your feelings about how Bishop would have behaved if he had been the author or partial author of John Brown?

Enough for now....Jeremy (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh Bhug, you disappoint me.....I've just been looking at the article and your supposed "scholarly" source. The following is uncited, and isapparently a garble of MacIntyre's account. Bishop, according to MacIntyre, did not write his song after a visit to Harpers Ferry but in Charles Town at the time of Brown's hanging.....and as I have mentioned the first four verses are entirely consistent with that. (Does being able to read with comprehension count as "original research"?) It is a trash reference, Bhugh, at least so far as it refers to Bishop. Is any pice of garbage good enough so long as it supports your cause? (He distorts the Jerome version as well, whther through carelessness or dishonesty is hard to say, but either way this is one trash reference)

Here is the tripe: According to [BIshop's] story, in 1858, he wrote verses for a song entitled "He's Gone to Be a Soldier in the Army of the Lord," one of the verses in the Fort Warren version of "John Brown's Body." Supposedly, in 1859, Bishop visited Harper's Ferry after John Brown's raid and wrote new verses to his "Army of the Lord" song, one of which was "John Brown's body lies a moulderin' in the grave." He later claimed to have written the words and music for "Kitty Wells," "Shoo, Fly, Don't Bother Me," and the tune for "When Johnny Comes Marching Home."

And also, the Bishop claim is not just a "typical" claim. That is wrong. It is, as you well know, the main alternative to the Kimball theory.

Anyway, really must go this time....Jeremy (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that...we don't the John Church Cincinnati version of the song, so far as I know....So we don't know if that one did have Bishop's name on it or not. ( He was a serving officer at the time, would that have imposed restrictions on publishing?) But it is very likely reproduced in MacIntyre's book....which I haven't seen inside although I have seen a picture of it on Amazon where a copy was recently available. I haven't read the book and I darsay neither have you....ceetainly your Allen "expert" never has. I'll see if it is in my local State Library....Jeremy (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few more small edits....most notably removing the claim that Kimball's is the "earliest known" account of the creation of the song. I don't think the research for the article, a bit of googling basically, can bear the weight of such a claim. A number of secondary sources remark that Bishop pushed his claim, and from memory Jerome's claim was actually earlier (his account is in the Libary of Congress site, someone with more time that I have right now might like to check). Bhugh pours scorn on the Steve Cornelius book, but has obviously not actually looked at it, as Cornelius shows no sign of having read the MacIntyre article but refers to an earlier folklorist as having strongly supported Bishop's claim. An article in the West Virginia historical journal casually refers to Bishop's authorship as a matter of common knowledge. This was in the 1960s when the Kimabll claims had been around for 70 years......the fact is I think that to take the argument further we will have to get off our computers and into a libary with paper books in it.

And I repeat, the Kimball claims do seem to fit a particular political agenda and while that doesn't mean they are untrue it does mean we should be careful. Jeremy (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another version

Due to it's development, there are maybe +20 versions of the song... I'm just going to post an alternate version for refrence here:

John Brown's Body lies a-moldering in the grave, (x3)

Chorus:

Glory, glory, hallelujah! (x3)

His soul goes marching on!

John Brown died that the slaves might be free, (x3)

But his soul goes marching on.

He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord, (x3)

And his soul is marching on.

The stars of heaven are looking kindly down, (x3)

On the grave of old John Brown.

Partially useful, I hope.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 03:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just making corrections...

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Parodies

Is Karl Marx's Whiskers are Sixteen Inches Long, mentioned in Franklin Rosemont's biography of Joe Hill, and mentioned in The Big Red Song Book also a parody? Pustelnik (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Brigham Bishop, once again

• So, I know there has been discussion here in the past on the authorship claims of Thomas Brigham Bishop. I've just written an article on Bishop, so I invite your commentary on it. Bishop was a fascinating guy, a clear teller of tall tales and not one to shy away from scams and grandiose claims. I am interested in finding any other biographies or articles about Bishop directly, as writing this article required poring over many old sources about the different stages of his life. cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Milowent, this is certainly an article that is very relevant to the history of the John Brown Song. Bhugh (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern Song

The band Masters of Reality Masters of Reality has a song on its 1989 album of of the same name produced by Rick Rubin. The song lyrics are about John Brown, "John Brown, bring him down, pull his body to the ground." Bucknastay (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

New Scholarly Book/Excellent New Source

A new, very excellent, scholarly history of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the tune, and related texts has been published: The Battle Hymn of the Republic: A Biography of the Song That Marches On by John Stauffer and Benjamin Soskis.

Some of the book is available via Google Books.

This should allow us to improve the article quite a lot and remove many of the speculations and spurious/poorly sourced ideas that have been included in the article in earlier revisions. The book includes excellent documentation pushing the 'Say Brothers' text and tune into the late 1700s/early 1800s and clearly ties the words (various versions) and tune to the camp meeting mileu.

• I made several revisions to incorporate some of this information. The new and very authoritative source clears up much of the issue around the former disputes as to whether Bishop, Steffe, etc etc had any claim to authorship of either John Brown text or tune. So the article could be re-written quite extensively to minimize the the prominence of those previous disputes and simply tell the story of how the John Brown Song text and music came to be and what its influence is. These first edits are just a first crack at this and there is still quite a bit of editing to be done to incorporate this information into and article that reads well and is focused. Bhugh (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• It might be worthwhile to create a separate article that focuses on Say Brothers and the origin of the tune, that could be linked from both this article and The Battle Hymn of the Republic article. That would allow this article to focus more closely on the interesting topic of the John Brown Song. Bhugh (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Great. Jeremy (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I went to the link but unfortunately it cut out before getting to Bishop, althoughb it certainly provides background for the claim that earlier words to the tune already had an anti-slavery subtext, "Canaan" being a recognized code term. Fascinating stuff. The especial reason I wanted to get to Bishop was to find out if is true that Bishop served in the Tiger battalion....if so then there is no necessary conflict between the Kimball and Bishop versions, apart from the red herring about the jovial Scotchman Sergeant Brown. Jeremy (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Class Update

I updated the article class from Start to C. This is clearly well above Start class and probably with a bit of cleanup could be in Class B range. Bhugh (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Far Side cartoon

In case anybody thinks a mention or link is worth it, here are a couple of sources about the "John Brown's Body and Fender Shop" Far Side cartoon. Orlando Sentinel article reddit discussion NoJoy (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Brown's Body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410134216/http://home.att.net/~dmercado/audio/jbb.mid to http://home.att.net/~dmercado/audio/jbb.mid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"John Brown's Tractor" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Brown's Tractor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding the word "song"

@Lennart97: I would like you to reconsider adding the word song. The context is that I recently wrote an article on John Brown's body, about his corpse and its burial. As it is now there is one article on John Brown's body and another on John Brown's Body. This is confusing. I couldn't think of what to put in parentheses as part of the title of the new article, so on the model of John Brown's Body (poem), I added the word song. Please reconsider. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The song is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "John Brown's Body", so it wouldn't need a qualifier even if it weren't already naturally differentiated from John Brown's body by capitalisation. If you insist on having it moved, you can file a move request, but I don't think it would succeed.

Additionally, I don't think the title "John Brown's body" is a very natural one. The article is specifically about his dead body, so something like Corpse of John Brown would make more sense. I can't find any similar Wikipedia articles on corpses though, so I don't know whether there's a convention for this or not. Lennart97 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't find evidence for Russian soldiers ever singing John Brown's Body

The source for the following line "The American consul in Vladivostok, Russia, Richard T. Greener, reported in 1906 that Russian soldiers were singing the song" eventually leads back to this article https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83030384/1906-08-18/ed-1/seq-24/. Yet, I can't find any mention of Vladivostok, Greener, or even the song itself. Tried searching elsewhere but all literature refers back to this single document.

Does anyone have any clue if this story is even real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilithJ777 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)