Not sure if this is the right forum for this question. I am a little confused how the South seems to be the "side" the church tends to side with during the Civil War. Does anyone have a history book they can recommend regarding this topic? I understand even to this day the North tends to be more liberal (blue states) & the South conservative (red states). How does slavery fit into all this?
Question regarding the church & the South during American civil war
- Thread starter 3John2
- Start date
- Status
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant
By Ulysses S. Grant
The Civil War: A Narrative
By Shelby Foote
Battle Cry of Freedom
By James McPherson
The Red Badge of Courage
By Stephen Crane
R. E. Lee
By Douglas Southall Freeman
Gettysburg
By Stephen Sears
Military Memoirs of a Confederate
By Edward Porter Alexander
A Stillness at Appomattox
By Bruce Catton
Lincoln, the War President
Edited by Gabor S. Boritt
Decision in the West:
The Atlanta Campaign of 1864
By Albert E. Castel
By Ulysses S. Grant
The Civil War: A Narrative
By Shelby Foote
Battle Cry of Freedom
By James McPherson
The Red Badge of Courage
By Stephen Crane
R. E. Lee
By Douglas Southall Freeman
Gettysburg
By Stephen Sears
Military Memoirs of a Confederate
By Edward Porter Alexander
A Stillness at Appomattox
By Bruce Catton
Lincoln, the War President
Edited by Gabor S. Boritt
Decision in the West:
The Atlanta Campaign of 1864
By Albert E. Castel
Fly Caster
Puritan Board Sophomore
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
Would it notbe better stated thus:
"The south thought that God was with them and against the 'heathen' tyrannical deists and unitarians in the North...
And the north thought that God was with them and against the 'heathen' slaveholders in the South"
Thanks Scott, do any of these mention specifically the theological issues & stances? Did Dabney ever write about this?
Martin
Puritan Board Freshman
Two sermons by John Weaver. The top one is a pretty good overview of the situation. The bottom one is for listening pleasure. Deo Vindice!
Why the South Must Rise Again - SermonAudio.com
The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag - SermonAudio.com
Why the South Must Rise Again - SermonAudio.com
The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag - SermonAudio.com
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
I would interested in hearing what Dr. Strange has to say about this as a Professor of Presbyterian History. I for one don't think that the South was the side that the Church was on and that there were Godly men who fought on both sides of the conflict. However, the enslavement of blacks and the church's acceptance of it is one of the great sins of the United States and the American church and it is not confined to only the South. That being said, the Confederate States were decidedly pro-slavery and it is difficult to see how they could possible on the "right" side of the conflict.
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
There is some discussion of theological positions and responses of the different denominations of the Southern Church in this book:
Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South, including a discussion on paternalism, though its focus goes beyond the church. The book is all antebellum, however.
Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South, including a discussion on paternalism, though its focus goes beyond the church. The book is all antebellum, however.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
A book that I would recommend, and have reviewed in the Mid-America Journal of Theology 22 (2011) is a fine new volume by George C. Rable entitled God's Almost Chosen Peoples: A Religious History of the American Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 586 pp.
It is even-handed and thoroughly researched. It is not written from a Reformed or even evangelical perspective, but Dr. Rable is scrupulously judicious and a first-rate historian. Thanks for asking, Zach. This is where I will leave it for now.
Peace,
Alan
It is even-handed and thoroughly researched. It is not written from a Reformed or even evangelical perspective, but Dr. Rable is scrupulously judicious and a first-rate historian. Thanks for asking, Zach. This is where I will leave it for now.
Peace,
Alan
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't think it is a matter asking which side the Church was on.
I agree
I don't think the North and South were collectively fighting the same war. While there were some wicked men in the south fighting to "preserve slavery," I don't think this was the majority view nor motivation for fighting in the war on the side of the south. I think that is an modern view.
However it does seem very apparent that in the North the average soldier was very united in a cause of ending slavery in the south, as well as preserving Federalism as their motivation for the war.
I think there were two wars being waged.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
The best quote I've heard on the average Southerner's view on why they fought the war is from Shelby Foote's books on the War.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yankee fiction. If you are going to do fiction and are concerned about the religious issues, I'd recommend Stonewall, by John Dwyer, instead. Amazon.com: Stonewall (9780805416633): John Dwyer: Books I think he did one on Lee, as well.
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
I would recommend Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion to anyone looking into the role that slavery played in the coming of the conflict. It's an eye opening read. Also, I don't know where I read the statistics but it is staggering the percentage of Confederate officers who owned slaves or were connected to a slave holding family.
With all due respect to him, Shelby Foote is not a professional historian and much of his work is not cited and hard to verify. For example, the myth of a shoe factory at Gettysburg was popularized in part by Shelby Foote's work. Not to mention that he writes with a Lost Cause slant. I would be interested to see from where he cited that quote.
With all due respect to him, Shelby Foote is not a professional historian and much of his work is not cited and hard to verify. For example, the myth of a shoe factory at Gettysburg was popularized in part by Shelby Foote's work. Not to mention that he writes with a Lost Cause slant. I would be interested to see from where he cited that quote.
Unoriginalname
Puritan Board Junior
That is a very interesting insight. I was always curious as to how the South theologically justified breaking from the Union. Does anyone have any insight into what the argument was for that?
Amazon.com: The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (9780807830123): Mark A. Noll: Books
The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll.
The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll.
Already put that on my list. Also Rable's. Apa kabar lae?
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
In a general historical way, yes, because Christianity, and especially what is called "Calvinism" was and so much a part of American life (on both sides).
Don't forget the impetus for abolition of the slave trade began earlier and made its way through the West with the Christianity of William Wilberforce in Great Brittan.
The authors references often betray a lack of understanding of spiritual issues, and particularly the doctrines of grace.
But you will get a thoroughgoing view by reading these works, and as a believer you can be discerning.
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
It have found these to be profitable books on religion in the south during the time of the civil war:
The Great Revival in the Southern Armies by W. W. Bennett
Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones <- I have not finished this one yet but it is very good so far.
---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------
On a personal level there is Life and Campaigns of Lieutenant General Thomas J. Stonewall Jackson by Robert Lewis Dabney. It is rather large and took me a long long time to read it. But I am not a very fast reader.
The Great Revival in the Southern Armies by W. W. Bennett
Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones <- I have not finished this one yet but it is very good so far.
---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------
On a personal level there is Life and Campaigns of Lieutenant General Thomas J. Stonewall Jackson by Robert Lewis Dabney. It is rather large and took me a long long time to read it. But I am not a very fast reader.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Zach
Dew's book is positively chilling and is a must read for those who would claim that race and slavery were not at the center of the conflict in the U.S. Civil War. They simply were, from the Secession Commissioners (about whom Dew writes) to Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone" speech to Benjamin Morgan Palmer's notorious "Thanksgiving sermon." The conflict about states' rights, popular sovereigty, etc. all centered around slavery. The great compromises of 1820 and 1850 had to do with that. The nineteenth century was consumed with the question. Noll's work on the War as a theological crisis (also cited here) is an excellent work as well and gives a very good handle on these things.
The truth of the matter is that among Presbyterians slavery received both its most forceful challenge--certainly among the Covenanters, and also in all the controversy surrounding George Bourne in the mainline church, leading to the great 1818 GA declaration against slavery and the theological underpinnings for some abolitionists--and its most forceful defense, whether by Smiley (of Mississippi), Dabney, or Palmer.
And, Eric, your question about a theological defense for secession might start with that Palmer sermon that I cited and also James Henley Thornwell's "Address to all the Churches" (which narrowly justifies the Southern Church but more broadly secession). For something longer see Robert Lewis Dabney's Defense of Virginia, which justifies Southern secession on grounds other than slavery. These are a few primary sources. This is just the tip of a huge iceberg!
Peace,
Alan
Dew's book is positively chilling and is a must read for those who would claim that race and slavery were not at the center of the conflict in the U.S. Civil War. They simply were, from the Secession Commissioners (about whom Dew writes) to Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone" speech to Benjamin Morgan Palmer's notorious "Thanksgiving sermon." The conflict about states' rights, popular sovereigty, etc. all centered around slavery. The great compromises of 1820 and 1850 had to do with that. The nineteenth century was consumed with the question. Noll's work on the War as a theological crisis (also cited here) is an excellent work as well and gives a very good handle on these things.
The truth of the matter is that among Presbyterians slavery received both its most forceful challenge--certainly among the Covenanters, and also in all the controversy surrounding George Bourne in the mainline church, leading to the great 1818 GA declaration against slavery and the theological underpinnings for some abolitionists--and its most forceful defense, whether by Smiley (of Mississippi), Dabney, or Palmer.
And, Eric, your question about a theological defense for secession might start with that Palmer sermon that I cited and also James Henley Thornwell's "Address to all the Churches" (which narrowly justifies the Southern Church but more broadly secession). For something longer see Robert Lewis Dabney's Defense of Virginia, which justifies Southern secession on grounds other than slavery. These are a few primary sources. This is just the tip of a huge iceberg!
Peace,
Alan
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Your basic problem may be that you are viewing things through a 21st century understanding of the relationship between the states and the union. Prior to the War, views were quite different, and the your duty was to your state, not a voluntary association of states.
You might look at the EU today to get some understanding of that. Would someone in Greece be a Greek, or a citizen of the EU. If Greece were to leave the EU, would the citizen in that area owe a duty to Athens or to Brussels/Strasbourg? Is the EU a creation of the components, or are the components the creation of the EU?
And in 1860, were the states the creation of the Union, or was the Union the creation of the states, which could be dissolved at will.
So, when General Lee was offered a Union command, he recognized his duty to the higher magistrate, Virginia.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
I think that the question that Eric raises, Edward, is a perfectly understandable one and not unlike any number that might be raised with respect to the justification of the American War for Independence or the Glorious Revolution (of 1688) or the English Civil War (1640-49), etc.
There was a great deal of debate about the nature of the union, though I don't think that anyone ever saw the states that were united on this continent as the USA as loosely connected as were the nations of the EU. Certainly Calhoun didn't. And neither did the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. I don't think that the EU is a helpful analogy. To be sure, the union was seen more loosely by Jefferson than Adams or Hamilton. Since the War the states have been differently seen.
It is interesting to note that almost all the Presbyterians before the War were Union men: certainly Hodge, Breckinridge and those like them were. But so also was Thornwell (who proposed gradually emancipating the slaves to maintain the union), Jackson, and even Dabney. Most Presbyterians at the time of the War, whether pro- or anti-slavery, saw the dissolution of the Union on a scale ranging from unmitigated disaster to undesirable.
Peace,
Alan
There was a great deal of debate about the nature of the union, though I don't think that anyone ever saw the states that were united on this continent as the USA as loosely connected as were the nations of the EU. Certainly Calhoun didn't. And neither did the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. I don't think that the EU is a helpful analogy. To be sure, the union was seen more loosely by Jefferson than Adams or Hamilton. Since the War the states have been differently seen.
It is interesting to note that almost all the Presbyterians before the War were Union men: certainly Hodge, Breckinridge and those like them were. But so also was Thornwell (who proposed gradually emancipating the slaves to maintain the union), Jackson, and even Dabney. Most Presbyterians at the time of the War, whether pro- or anti-slavery, saw the dissolution of the Union on a scale ranging from unmitigated disaster to undesirable.
Peace,
Alan
The South, in my view, was in the right, politically and for the sake of general American liberty, but I shudder at the sin-gone-unpunished and the greater damage to the church's witness, if the evils of the slavery as then practiced in the Confederacy had been left lingering in the social fabric of a victorious South. Religiously, I think American slavery itself and the theological defense of it was an evil of such a nature that required a divine rebuke. I say this boldly, though on balance I am strongly opposed to "scrying Providence" to assay for divine favor.
Based on human nature going its ordinary way, absent a significant repentance and reevaluation, following the tendency to see victory as "validation" of one's moral rectitude (exhibit A: the North), I strongly suspect that self-righteousness would have ruined a Southron success--as it unquestionably corrupted the Union's, that suffered from the outset with an even more dubious moral-foundation for its military aggression.
I don't say an alternative aftermath couldn't have developed differently than that; only that by the actual defeat of the South, those who have some sympathy for it have a clear opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their cause, along with the blindness that culture imposes on theological enterprise.
Based on human nature going its ordinary way, absent a significant repentance and reevaluation, following the tendency to see victory as "validation" of one's moral rectitude (exhibit A: the North), I strongly suspect that self-righteousness would have ruined a Southron success--as it unquestionably corrupted the Union's, that suffered from the outset with an even more dubious moral-foundation for its military aggression.
I don't say an alternative aftermath couldn't have developed differently than that; only that by the actual defeat of the South, those who have some sympathy for it have a clear opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their cause, along with the blindness that culture imposes on theological enterprise.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Here is a NY times opinion piece which refers to some of the books recommended in this thread - The South, the War and 'Christian Slavery' - NYTimes.com
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Bruce:
You open a larger can of worms than I am prepared to address at the time: the whole fate of the American experiment as a result of the secession, the War that followed, and all that has come since the War. I have sought to address the narrower questions, as I understand them, of slavery, union, and the War. What you seek to address is the entirety of the American scene since then. That's a huge question and while we have many points of agreement, I think that it's considerably more complex than you are suggesting. I think before we can most successfully address them we need to have a real handle on nineteenth century American history, including religious history. As I said, I appreciate much of what you are saying but would demur at points.
The question, for example, of whether the South not only had the right to secede but was right in seceding under the circumstances that it did is a huge one. I may be unconvinced that the South rightly seceded constitutionally, but I am not interested in making that argument here, which is a political and not a biblical argument. The issue of the use of force is not simply a matter for Lincoln but for Davis (those were federal forts, not state properties, that were the proximate cause of the war). These are exceedingly complex matters, the most difficult in our whole history, and need lengthy treatment, so I am reluctant even to raise them.
PBers should feel no need to come to definitive conclusions about these exceedingly thorny issues and should be wary of me or anyone else who offers dogmatic answers. We can be dogmatic about theology because we have a divinely inspired book from which we derive it. The same is not true of history, about which we who agree theologically may differ sharply. This is why we want clearly to distinguish the theological from other enterprises. Rable, in God's Almost Chosen Peoples, as does Noll (as did Lincoln in the Second Inaugural Address) well shows orthodox men on both sides seeking to justify their actions by appeal to heaven.
I agree, as Edward said, that we don't need to approach these questions merely from a 21st century approach. We need to approach them from the 18th and 19th centuries in the American context, having in view the whole situation and not simply taking the word, as it were, of the partisans of the conflict on either side. I think that there is more than one way to read back into these events. Much of our 21st c. conservative/libertarian approach is quite different from the feel and thought of the nineteenth century. I suppose that I've said too much already and will leave it there.
You open a larger can of worms than I am prepared to address at the time: the whole fate of the American experiment as a result of the secession, the War that followed, and all that has come since the War. I have sought to address the narrower questions, as I understand them, of slavery, union, and the War. What you seek to address is the entirety of the American scene since then. That's a huge question and while we have many points of agreement, I think that it's considerably more complex than you are suggesting. I think before we can most successfully address them we need to have a real handle on nineteenth century American history, including religious history. As I said, I appreciate much of what you are saying but would demur at points.
The question, for example, of whether the South not only had the right to secede but was right in seceding under the circumstances that it did is a huge one. I may be unconvinced that the South rightly seceded constitutionally, but I am not interested in making that argument here, which is a political and not a biblical argument. The issue of the use of force is not simply a matter for Lincoln but for Davis (those were federal forts, not state properties, that were the proximate cause of the war). These are exceedingly complex matters, the most difficult in our whole history, and need lengthy treatment, so I am reluctant even to raise them.
PBers should feel no need to come to definitive conclusions about these exceedingly thorny issues and should be wary of me or anyone else who offers dogmatic answers. We can be dogmatic about theology because we have a divinely inspired book from which we derive it. The same is not true of history, about which we who agree theologically may differ sharply. This is why we want clearly to distinguish the theological from other enterprises. Rable, in God's Almost Chosen Peoples, as does Noll (as did Lincoln in the Second Inaugural Address) well shows orthodox men on both sides seeking to justify their actions by appeal to heaven.
I agree, as Edward said, that we don't need to approach these questions merely from a 21st century approach. We need to approach them from the 18th and 19th centuries in the American context, having in view the whole situation and not simply taking the word, as it were, of the partisans of the conflict on either side. I think that there is more than one way to read back into these events. Much of our 21st c. conservative/libertarian approach is quite different from the feel and thought of the nineteenth century. I suppose that I've said too much already and will leave it there.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
But just how loosely are the EU states connected these days? It's somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the post-War US; and I'd suggest not that very far from early 19th century America. Remember, upon its founding, our country was often referred to in the plural, rather than the singular. For an early usage, see Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
In any event, my purpose here isn't to argue history or geopolitics, but just to show that the Secession had a sounder theological base than did the American Revolution. And that that that basis must viewed not through the current lens.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Actually the South had no more theological footing than did the Colonies against Britain. Some argue that the States ratified the Constitution (thus entering the Union) conditionally, i.e. that they entered while reserving to themselves the right to leave the Union later. This however is historically insupportable.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Edward:
Another can of worms!
I agree with Bob wrt the South (and the nature of the union constitutionally), and I think that the Colonies had a better case than did the South. In fact, I think that a reasonable case can be made for the Colonies pressing for Independence (arguable, I realize), more so than the States pressing for Secession. I do not deny that there may be cause sufficient for secession, but I am not convinced that what became the CSA had it. And neither did many of the best constitutionalists at the time.
I do not deny, Edward, that folk before the War said "The United States are" and so forth. There is, as you suggest, a continuum from the Articles of Confederation to what we've become today. And I agree that we've lost some good things. But we've also gained some good things. BTW, I do note that not long ago on this board when I made some criticisms of consumeristic capitalism that could have been made, at least in some measure, by John C. Calhoun, it was not exactly well-received by some, who espoused the strongest "Yankee" economic notions. I think that we need to study all of these things a lot more and not take Glenn Beck's word for it (I am not suggesting that you are doing that, Edward).
I am encouraged by young men on this board like Eric, Philip, Shawn, et al., who evidence that they are thinking about these things and questioning these things in fresh and biblical ways and are not letting their agendas be set by the loud partisan voices all about us.
Peace,
Alan
Another can of worms!
I agree with Bob wrt the South (and the nature of the union constitutionally), and I think that the Colonies had a better case than did the South. In fact, I think that a reasonable case can be made for the Colonies pressing for Independence (arguable, I realize), more so than the States pressing for Secession. I do not deny that there may be cause sufficient for secession, but I am not convinced that what became the CSA had it. And neither did many of the best constitutionalists at the time.
I do not deny, Edward, that folk before the War said "The United States are" and so forth. There is, as you suggest, a continuum from the Articles of Confederation to what we've become today. And I agree that we've lost some good things. But we've also gained some good things. BTW, I do note that not long ago on this board when I made some criticisms of consumeristic capitalism that could have been made, at least in some measure, by John C. Calhoun, it was not exactly well-received by some, who espoused the strongest "Yankee" economic notions. I think that we need to study all of these things a lot more and not take Glenn Beck's word for it (I am not suggesting that you are doing that, Edward).
I am encouraged by young men on this board like Eric, Philip, Shawn, et al., who evidence that they are thinking about these things and questioning these things in fresh and biblical ways and are not letting their agendas be set by the loud partisan voices all about us.
Peace,
Alan
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
Which is why it is so important to read original source materials on these matters, even to immerse yourself in them, if that is your intended field of study (even for a short term study).
Nineteenth century newspapers, though often difficult to find, can be one great resource in tracking thought and culture.
- Status
