Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The War (for Southern independence) Was About Theology, Too
by Al Benson Jr.
Although it is an issue seldom discussed, the prevailing theologies of both North and South contributed mightily as one of the main reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. I have stated in the past that the tariff was an issue that was alive and well before the start of the war--and so was the theological issue.
This is an area almost no one is willing to touch. Yet another one of those carefully and studiously ignored issues, which, if even mentioned in some circles, might just take away from "the war was all about slavery" propaganda. And so the theological issue must be swept under the rug, and today's Leftist "historians" most fervently hope that no one will ever bother to pick up the corner of the rug and look underneath.
In his book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" author Frank Conner has told us: "The Northerners who actually mounted te ideological war against the South were led primarily by ex-Congregationalist ministers. Although the issue they pushed was the abolition of slavery, in fact they were fighting a religious war--of secular humanism (ideological liberalism) against Christianity in America, using the South as their battleground."
"Their ideological war is one of the two key factors which largely explains the history of the relations between the North and the South from 1830 until now (the other is economics)." Mr. Conner has correctly noted that:"...ideological liberalism is a religion that generates radical-left politics." I have no problem agreeing with him there. We can also say that such a religion is the result of apostasy from the Christian faith.
C. Gregg Singer in his "A Theological Interpretation of American History" noted that: "After 1830 there was a growing philosophical cleavage between North and South. While the North was becoming increasingly subject to radical influences, the South was becoming increasingly conservative in its outlook." The noted Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell put it thusly: "The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders--they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground--Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake." One might well wonder, given the bloody excesses of the 20th century, how the "progress" of humanity has fared.
Professor Singer has informed us that those who founded the Southern Presbyterian Church saw something in abolitionism far more penetrating and subversive than a mere protest against the evils of slavery. He says "They saw it as a continuation of the French Revolution, motivated by the same philosophy and pursuing the same ends. They saw it primarily as a humanistic revolt against Christianity and the world and life view of the Scriptures. They saw in it an expression of democratic philosophy which left no place for a sovereign God and accorded all prestige to a sovereign humanity instead."
This radical outlook and the plague of Unitarianism were what pervaded much of the North in the few decades before the War of Northern Aggression. Although the Unitarians were never exceedingly numerous, the fact that they had a number of the New England elite among their ranks contributed very much to their influence over much of the North. Although there were, no doubt, some sincere Christians in the Abolitionist Movement, there were also many Unitarians, who, having rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Holy Scripture, had an abiding hatred for the South, which had experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival in the 1830s and was more Calvinistic in its faith after that. The Unitarians had mauled Calvinism in the North, especially in New England, and now they most fervently desired to do the same thing in the South. Their radical, Christ-denying mindset helped much to set the tone of thinking in the North in the decades before the war.
The Unitarians and socialists had many views in common, and it did not bother the Unitarians one whit that there were so many socialists in the Union armies. Both groups hated God and wanted to ban Him to total irrelevancy and thereby make autonomous man the measure of all things--the "captain of his own soul." In their view the highest expression of man was the state--and therefore--it was up to the state (government) to instuct the rest of us how to live and what to think, and to then make sure we all did that via appropriate legislation, all for our own "good" of course. Would-be dictators of all stripes always seem to know what is "good" for the rest of us (themselves exempted naturally). And what seems to be "good" for us is usually better financially for them.
Although there were Christians in the North before the war, the Unitarian apostasy had so infected and infiltrated many Northern churches that it affected the Northern mindset and predisposed it toward an unreasonable hatred toward an increasingly Calvinistic South.
As much as many seek to deny or ignore them, the theological issues involved in the War of Northern Aggression were very real and they need to be further explored and discussed, as do the biblical reasons for secession--yet another issue of professional Leftist "historians" have neglected to inform us about.
(This article originally appreared on the Sierra Times website.)
Basically, the North as a whole rejected the Scriptures and took hold of heresies such as transcendentalism, diesm, etc.
I think you're trying to approach the morality of the war through religious affiliation. I think that's a poor approach, but to each his own.
If I'm not mistaken, you're positioning yourself as the North was wrong because it had more "religious heretics" in your eyes.
There are several things wrong with that I think (especially when one considers that the Union won), but since you haven't really explained yourself very well I have no way of knowing.
And using a blog from the "Copperhead Chronicle" is not good history.
Indeed, JPeter, like you I can only wonder what 'great' sin the Christian South committed to cause God to turn away from them and let them suffer abject defeat by unbelievers?
Apparently not only did slavery stop at the Mason-Dixon Line, but also, God AND both on the southern side of the Line too.
Indeed, JPeter, like you I can only wonder what 'great' sin the Christian South committed to cause God to turn away from them and let them suffer abject defeat by unbelievers?
Apparently not only did slavery stop at the Mason-Dixon Line, but also, God AND both on the southern side of the Line too.
Basically, the North as a whole rejected the Scriptures and took hold of heresies such as transcendentalism, diesm, etc.
Where did you ever find evidence to support this incorrect assertion? If you visit any Northern city or town you will find very old 17th, 18th and 19th century churches still standing and operated by the following religious groups: Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterian and even some Unitarians. Most of the Protestant denominations above accepted the scriptures, while Catholics were proscribed from reading them. Transcendentalist and deists were made up from the educated class and represented only small minorities. For every Emerson and Thoreau there were hundreds of religious folk in the North.
The article you posted is just plain wrong. The Unitarians never controlled Northern Protestantism. The Congregational Church split in 1825 and one part became the Unitarian Church, but the other remained. The idea that the North was mainly made up of people who did not believe in Jesus' divinity is incorrect. A few authors and clergymen are given way too much credit and they did not control Northern religious opinion. In 1909 it is estimated that the total Unitarian Church membership was only 100,000.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Added to what Freddy just said, I believe the article was meant to articulate a Calvinistic justification for war.
The northern Unitarians were a non-Trinitarian religion - heathens in every respect by today's standards (although not by 19th century standards). Even though Unitarians were a tiny minority, there were at the front of the abolition movement - hence the connection.
The article seeks to justify the southern cause for defense with the South's Protestant belief system. The author infers that it was more in tune with what God wished.
I find it distasteful to base CW causation on whether God approved of church doctrine on one side or the other.
I started reading your post #31 above and had to stop shortly into it.
First, the article is obviously biased, one-sided and could in no way be called objective.
Second, the concept of the 'evil' North is a thin one with me as the article cannot produce one bit of evidence that one section of the Uniteds States was more evil than another. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, this is only the articles author's partisan opinion and nothing more.
The reason "this is an area almost no one is willing to touch" or it is "carefully and studiously ignored" is because it has nothing to do with historical fact and has no bearing on the causes of the Civil War. The author builds a strawman argument and then proceeds to 'win' it by such obvious devices. In my own words, "It won't fly, no matter how hard you throw it."
samgrant had it right in an earlier post when he quoted from Lincoln's 2nd innagural address.
"Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we not be judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is on of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His Appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."
The issue of the Civil War, its primary cause was the institution of slavery, not some smokescreen of religion or lack thereof in the North.
While I admit it might be of some comfort not to confront that hard, historical fact, and to retreat into some mystical, magical fog of theology, it does not disguise the truth. The idea that "Unitarians rejected Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Holy Scripture" and hated the South so much as to bring on the Civil War all by themselves defies history and logic.
Those who continually wish to downgrade slavery and its overwheming concern to the South at the time are grasping at straws with this article and do not good service to the church, religion or theology in doing so. It is sloppy history at best and a deliberate attempt at distortion at worst. Snide remarks about needing to "deny or ignore" theological issues or "professional Leftist historians" simply indicates to me the desperation of the author and his supporters to do anything to ignore the real reasons for the oncoming of the Civil War.
God had very little to do with it.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Sorry I am not explaining myself well enough. I will try to
clarify myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeter
I think you're trying to approach the morality of the war through religious affiliation. I think that's a poor approach, but to each his own.
I am approaching it from the viewpoint of how the Bible as the inerrant Word of God was viewed by the churches North and South.
If I'm not mistaken, you're positioning yourself as the North was wrong because it had more "religious heretics" in your eyes.
The South was also wrong. Southern slavery was sinful,
Southern Christians made slavery and idol. Both North and South took part in a major land grab called the Mexican War. I view the Civil War as a judgment on the entire country. Some sins peculiar to the North, some to the South, and some to both. As far as Biblical Interpretation is concerned, I believe the South was right.
There are several things wrong with that I think (especially when one considers that the Union won), but since you haven't really explained yourself very well I have no way of knowing.
The good guys don't always win.
Constitutionally, I believe the South was right. But God is the Supreme Judge, not Constitutions or men. The South may have been right Constitutionally, but God is concerned more about man obeying His Commands.
And using a blog from the "Copperhead Chronicle" is not good history.
History can be interpreted in many different ways depending on the presuppositions one brings to it.
I'd recommend something less jaundiced.
Your thinking it is jaundiced is just one viewpoint. How one looks at the War depends on where one is coming from.
Everyone is biased one way or the other, everyone has their opinion. Isn't Lincolns address biased in favor of how he saw the situation? Especially since it is a political
speech designed to curry favor for his cause?
As far as God having very little to do with it:
"The LORD has established His throne in the heavens,
And His sovereignty rules over all." Psalm 103:19
"The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations;
He frustrates the plans of the peoples."
Psalm 33:10
(I know this is not what you meant by what you said, I just wanted to take it in a different direction.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
henryjackson,
I started reading your post #31 above and had to stop shortly into it.
First, the article is obviously biased, one-sided and could in no way be called objective.
Second, the concept of the 'evil' North is a thin one with me as the article cannot produce one bit of evidence that one section of the Uniteds States was more evil than another. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, this is only the articles author's partisan opinion and nothing more.
The reason "this is an area almost no one is willing to touch" or it is "carefully and studiously ignored" is because it has nothing to do with historical fact and has no bearing on the causes of the Civil War. The author builds a strawman argument and then proceeds to 'win' it by such obvious devices. In my own words, "It won't fly, no matter how hard you throw it."
samgrant had it right in an earlier post when he quoted from Lincoln's 2nd innagural address.
"Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we not be judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is on of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His Appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."
The issue of the Civil War, its primary cause was the institution of slavery, not some smokescreen of religion or lack thereof in the North.
While I admit it might be of some comfort not to confront that hard, historical fact, and to retreat into some mystical, magical fog of theology, it does not disguise the truth. The idea that "Unitarians rejected Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Holy Scripture" and hated the South so much as to bring on the Civil War all by themselves defies history and logic.
Those who continually wish to downgrade slavery and its overwheming concern to the South at the time are grasping at straws with this article and do not good service to the church, religion or theology in doing so. It is sloppy history at best and a deliberate attempt at distortion at worst. Snide remarks about needing to "deny or ignore" theological issues or "professional Leftist historians" simply indicates to me the desperation of the author and his supporters to do anything to ignore the real reasons for the oncoming of the Civil War.
From a 'theological view' one has to assume that God is, either, actively participating in the war or not. If God was active, then the south suffered God's Judgement if he was not active, then the south suffered the judgement of man. Either way, the south lost; but if I had my druthers, I druther think I got beat by the bigger battalions, rather than suffering God's Wrath.
The southern secessionist theological view, was that the correctness of a principle, was tested by its success (or failure). God would not allow an act based on a correct principle (one based on God's Will) to fail.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Article 
Linear Mode
