# Question regarding the church & the South during American civil war



## 3John2 (May 18, 2012)

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?


----------



## Scott1 (May 18, 2012)

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


----------



## gordo (May 18, 2012)

I think both sides thought the 'church' was on their side. The south thought that God was with them and against the 'heathen' abolitionists while the north thought that God was with them and against the 'heathen' slaveholders.


----------



## Fly Caster (May 18, 2012)

2007 Zion History Conference Series - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 18, 2012)

gordo said:


> The south thought that God was with them and against the 'heathen' abolitionists while the north thought that God was with them and against the 'heathen' slaveholders.


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"


----------



## Edward (May 18, 2012)

The South had generals who were men of faith, such as Presbyterian Thomas Jackson, and Episcopal Bishop Leonidas Polk; the north paragons of amorality like Hooker and drunkards like Grant. What is there to compare?


----------



## 3John2 (May 18, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant
> By Ulysses S. Grant
> 
> The Civil War: A Narrative
> ...



Thanks Scott, do any of these mention specifically the theological issues & stances? Did Dabney ever write about this?


----------



## Martin (May 18, 2012)

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


----------



## Zach (May 18, 2012)

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 (May 18, 2012)

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.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 18, 2012)

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


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 18, 2012)

Zach said:


> I for one don't think that the South was the side that the Church was on


I don't think it is a matter asking which side the Church was on.


Zach said:


> there were Godly men who fought on both sides of the conflict.


I agree



Zach said:


> 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.


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 (May 18, 2012)

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.



> A Confederate soldier who was captured early in the war expressed the South’s reason for fighting in simple yet eloquent terms. He wore a ragged homemade uniform, and like most other Southerners he didn’t own any slaves. When his Union captors asked him why he was fighting for the Confederacy, he replied, “I’m fighting because you’re down here”


----------



## Edward (May 18, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> The Red Badge of Courage
> By Stephen Crane



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 (May 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## Unoriginalname (May 19, 2012)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## Pergamum (May 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## 3John2 (May 19, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> 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.



Already put that on my list. Also Rable's. Apa kabar lae?


----------



## Scott1 (May 19, 2012)

3John2 said:


> Thanks Scott, do any of these mention specifically the theological issues & stances?



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 (May 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 19, 2012)

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


----------



## Edward (May 19, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> 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?


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 (May 19, 2012)

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 19, 2012)

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 (May 19, 2012)

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.


----------



## Edward (May 19, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> 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.



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 (May 19, 2012)

Edward said:


> the Secession had a sounder theological base than did the American Revolution



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 (May 19, 2012)

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


----------



## Wayne (May 19, 2012)

> 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.



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.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 19, 2012)

Absolutely, Wayne. That's what I'm talking about! Thanks.

And, seeing this makes me remember that I had a PM from you that I meant to answer but haven't. Given my schedule it'll probably be two years before the book to which I referred comes out. It's on Hodge's spirituality of the church, with comparisons to Thornwell, Robinson, and others. I won't say more for now, but I'll be in touch with you about it once I get a first full draft. Perhaps you would like to read it and give me your criticisms. I am thankful for all the good things that the PCAHC has put online! I should get by there to visit you sometime later this year or next year (I am about to go again to Princeton and spend a good part of June in the Special Collections in the Hodge Papers in the Firestone).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Edward (May 19, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> This however is historically insupportable.



That's not good Constitutional exegesis. 

Since the Constitution did not specifically deal with leaving the Union, it was well covered by the Tenth Amendment - at least until 1865. 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------




Alan D. Strange said:


> Another can of worms!



I do thank you for your comments, although we do disagree on several points. And I've gone further down this road than I intended. The question I attempted to address in my first post today was that the southern Presbyterians were not necessarily contra confessional, they just look that way from our perspective a century and a half later.


----------



## rbcbob (May 19, 2012)

You miss my point perhaps. Patrick Henry argued passionately at his states ratification convention for "conditional ratification" maintaining the right to withdraw from the union if so desired. Henry's proposal was defeated and Virgina, like all other States, entered the Union with no recourse to secession.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 19, 2012)

Folks, my research has uncovered the same sort of thing that Bob is arguing here. To really get at this, you need to research the ratifying conventions in the states and what prevailed there. The U.S. becomes a nation, I believe, in the ratifying of the Constitution and the anti-Federalists are defeated. Maybe you don't like that--and that's fine--the anti-Federalists have some interesting arguments, but that was not what prevailed. Jefferson himself betrayed many of the anti-Federalist principles that he found he could not live with in attempting to govern the nation. So did his successor Madison (the War of 1812; which, btw, you dear Canadian friends did not win ). Remember Calhoun was a nationalist (for "internal improvements" like Clay) up into the 1830s when it became clear that that threatened slavery. Enough of this! Bob is right. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (May 20, 2012)

see also mark noll's
chapter 18 "The 'Bible Alone' and a Reformed, Literal Hermeneutic", and

chapter 19 "The Bible and Slavery"

from his _America's God_


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 20, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> 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.


I completely agree. I do not wish anyone to suppose that I think the complex issues in view are reducible to soundbites, or short paragraphs.

Those were merely my opinions, and should not be viewed as anything more than dilettantish.

I am a native Virginian, and biased in her favor on that account. But not so biased that I cannot imagine she (and the rest of the South) were quite so right as they portrayed themselves, not only politically, but especially morally.

I do think the record shows that many states, including NewEngland examples, clearly ratified the original union with the understanding (animus imponentis) that this was not an irreversible choice.

In my view, if South Carolina was free to secede, then Sumpter's Fort had no right to demand a toll or threaten shipping at the Charleston Free Harbor to collect duty for a foreign (D.C.) government. That doesn't mean the Fort should have been bombarded. Bellicose sentiment was quite ridiculous among those "feeling their oats" in the South.

And I suppose I've said too much myself, and will leave it alone too.


----------



## Loopie (May 20, 2012)

I just want to say that I respect all of the opinions that have been put forth in this thread concerning States having the right (or not) to secede. There is so much historical information to study about the subject that it would take quite some time to go through it all.

It is certainly true that believing that States SHOULD have the right to secede is very different than saying that according to the Constitution, the States DO have the right to secede. Even though I am still unsure about the constitutionality of secession, I am very much in favor of states having the right to secede.

The reason I say this is because if we were to say that a State NEVER has the option of seceding, then we essentially grant potentially unlimited power to the Federal Government. If the Federal Government were to do something that was both immoral and unconsitutional, a State could never do anything more than cry out and complain. It could not secede, and it could not resist.

Consider for a moment an example where the Federal Government 'crosses the line' against a State Government. It very well might be possible that one day the Federal Government decides that ALL states MUST recognize ALL same-sex marriages. Now, in this situation a state would have to comply, and could do nothing more than complain about what the Federal Government has done. 

Please understand that I am not saying that a state SHOULD secede if the Federal Government tries to redefine marriage nationally. What I am saying is that I believe it is very possible that the Federal Government could 'cross the line' to the point that a State could be justified in seceding from the Union. That is why I believe that States SHOULD have the right to secede. I honestly do not know what situation would need to develop in order for a State to be justified in seceding, but I do believe that there is 'a line' out there that the Federal Government might one day cross. To say that a state does not have the right to secede is to essentially say that there IS NO LINE that the Federal Government could cross. It is to say that the Federal Government COULD potentially have unlimited power over the states (if it chose to do so).

On a more personal note, I honestly do not know what I would do if the Federal Government ordered me to launch air strikes against my home state of Pennsylvania. There are Air Force pilots that I have flown with that openly declare that they would fight for their state if it were to secede from the Union. I pray that there will never come a time where Washington D. C. orders me to bomb members of the Pennsylvanian National Guard (which my cousin is a Captain in). If such an order were to come down, I do not think I could follow it.

Perhaps this is what motivated many Confederate soldiers to stand against the Federal Government. There can be no doubt that many of them were appalled at the idea of going to war against their own countrymen, to invade and subdue their own states. Regardless of whether or not we can 'prove' that secession was unconstitutional, there is no doubt that millions of Americans in 1861 thought that it was a perfectly legitimate option. Perhaps they were all wrong in their interpretation of the constitution, but I still have not been fully convinced that secession is wholly unconstitutional. There is no doubt that the idea of secession was thrown around during the Hartford Convention of 1814 (as well as the War of 1812). Whether anyone was serious about it or not is a different question. Yet even if it could be shown to be clearly unconstitutional, I still believe that States SHOULD have the option to secede as a last resort against a potentially immoral and tyrannical Federal Government.


----------



## Pergamum (May 20, 2012)

Here is another sermon on slavery from a Reformed Baptist perspective:

_
Commerce in the Human Species, and the Enslaving of Innocent Persons, inimical to the Laws of Moses and the Gospel of Christ_

By Abraham Booth, preached on 29 January, 1792. I am looking for a full copy now.


----------



## Pergamum (May 24, 2012)

Commerce in the human species, and the enslaving of innocent persons, inimical to the laws of Moses and the gospel of Christ : a sermon, preached in Little Prescot Street, Goodman's Fields, January 29, 1792

Here is a link to the Booth sermon.


----------

