Op-ed: 'Unnecessary but transformational'

And by the way, I am sitting here in my office, and I put Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changing CD into my computer, for some end of day tunes, while I closed things down, and I decide to pop in here, and I have an Alert about this thread so ....at almost the exact time I click on this "historical evenagelical Christianity" thread, the song "With God On Our Side" starts.
That song should be a required listening for anyone pontificating on this subject. I don't excuse myself.
If you can't stand Dylan's voice, be forewarned, but its worth it. He talks specifically about the CW among others.
 
Interesting post GloryBound. I would hesitate to say that I am more informed than my father. But what I now study here as the CSA. Was always referred to as "The Bible Belt" by my father.
I would not give any certainty as to where the line begins and ends. But where there are divisions of opinion, there is most always a reason for conflict. Religion is one of those tinderboxes which tend to heighten arguments.
Today's opinions between "creationists" and "evolutionists" is perhaps the latest schism to develop between same faith churches.
The revolutionary war would have seen a downturn of Anglican church influence. This vacuum being filled with a plethora of branches of the same source. How these new churches would be geographically spread, may have influenced their concentration towards the South.
I believe the North and East, would have to take a more cosmopolitan stand given the number of immigrants, bringing their own cultures and beliefs. The South having less of an immigrant population. Would be left in a "purer" condition regarding religious beliefs.
A firm conviction of the "Adam and Eve" principal of white superiority. As ordained by the almighty. Would be a difficult concept to overturn.
The scientific community backing up such beliefs with papers mounting to little more than racial hypothesis, such as "blackness being akin to a disease such as leprosy". Were at the time of the Civil War. Lending weight to the argument of slavery being morally right.
Not to say that people then, did not have the wherewithall to think for themselves. But the "church" and the bible carried significant sway in how they led their lives. For many it still does. But with multiple interpretations.
1859 would see the publication of a controversial study, many years in the compiling. Called " The Origin of Species"(short title). Charles Darwin, while not referring directly to human evolution. Was quizzed by the Bishop of Oxford as to the question of "The Common Ancestor". Sparking the caricatures of the day featuring the head of Darwin on an ape.
Challenging the common held beliefs. Was always going to be a flame in the powder room. But, again only my opinion, the set-up of the cosmopolitan North. Would be more adaptable to such a publication. Than the conservative Southern churches.
Again. Just my opinion.
 
What exactly was transformed by the War?

The institution of slavery was abolished.
The concept of secession from the Union was put to bed, forever.
The political and socio-economic institutions and infrastructure of the South were virtually destroyed, leading to Reconstruction and carpet baggers and the rest.
The concept that most American people had of the USA changed, from being very provincial to very national

If you disagree, can you identify for me an event in our history that was transformational, so I can get an idea of what you consider to be transformational?
 
In historical terms war is neither truly necessary or unnecessary.
If the Revolutionary War was THE transformational moment in our history, in what ways were it and the CW comparably transformational?
 
It is true beyond any reasonable doubt that economic interests were a key factor in the Civil War. But it may also be true that religious ideas had some effect - if only to cause perceptions of things that were not true based on objective fact (such as secessionists believing that Republicans were more of a threat to slavery than they were).

- Alan

Is it possible both are intertwined in the sense that slavery was for profit and that by challenging the institution on religious and moral grounds abolitionists caused southerners to have to dig in their heels and launch an unwinable war because there was no other possible defense for slavery? By that I mean, as long as slave owners could claim blacks were a subhuman species as a justification for working them like animals, they did not have to face the immorality of their actions. But once this rationale was openly challenged and abolitionists argued for the humanity of slaves, the south was left no other defense against the truth-laid-bare but to wage war.
 
No I don't think so. I don't believe morality was a big problem regarding slave ownership. The Bible teaches that slaves should try to be good slaves and masters should try to be good masters.
 
No I don't think so. I don't believe morality was a big problem regarding slave ownership. The Bible teaches that slaves should try to be good slaves and masters should try to be good masters.

I agree totally, Bill. There were as many moral/religious arguments for slavery as there were against slavery.

R
 
The problem with this scenario of Religious differences being a cause is that in the United States, these differences were not segregated sectionally. Oh to be sure the "righteousness of the cause", north or south added to the fervor but they did not cause the civil war to occur. An examination of the religious beliefs of the "Butternuts," and the First and Second Great Awakenings reveal that north and south of the 600 mile length of the Ohio River there were almost no differences. The difference was the exclusion of slavery north of the river and its eventual habitation by numerous family farmers and the promotion of slavery south of the river as a means to becoming large land owners. This left the least desireable land to the poor dirt farmers. The rest of the Southern white population had to migrate west in search of viable land where their American Dream could be realized too.

Little noted because it it barely discussed in virtually any history is the rapid settlement of the Southwest Territory. The Northwest Territory and its prescribed settlement-to-statehood policies in the Northwest Ordinance had no counterpart south of the Ohio. The only part of the land ordinance to cross the river was the requirement of 60,000 inhabitants (white or black) needed to apply for statehood.

As a result, the southern states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri and Texas qualified for statehood long before the states north of the Ohio. These states all reached sixty thousand people due to settlement by slave-owners who could bring a great deal of land under cultivation quickly. Those who arrived too late were forced to move on. Indeed, South Carolina's white population decreased in the first decade of the 19th century. As an example of what happened to those who moved north and south of the river, Lincoln and Davis were both born in Kentucky in 1809. Neither's father was among the lucky first arrivals. Lincoln's father moved north of the river, where there was plenty of land still available from the government being sold in small parcels (640 acres). Davis' father moved to Mississippi where all the land was in private hands and there was no limit on the amount of land one could buy. Slaves could even be rented on credit to clear the land and put in crops to get started.

This question of 'free soil' which prevented the well-financed from buying up all the good land before the small farmer could even get there is the real heart of this conflict, not religious differences.
 
That's something I've heard before: even famous settlers like Daniel Boone got moved out because their was no reliable way to establish landownership outside the old Northwest Territory.
 
Lincoln's defense of the Union and opposition to slavery, was couched in the assumption that both(Union and oppostion to slavery) were intrinsic parts of both, the aspiration of the United States as expressed in the DoI and codified in its Organic Law(Constitution). From this perspective then, to change the course(meaning) of both the DoI and the Constitution, as he believed the slaveowning oligarchywere trying to do, by holding both hostage to secession, made war necessary to retrieve the old understanding of what the two documents meant.
But, such a war was not transitional, but a return to the tried true precepts of the Founding Fathers of both the Revolution and their Constitution i.e., the war would only have been transitional if the csa had won their independence.
 
P.S. God makes no distictions of sins, one is as wrong(and deadly) as any other. So no points for trying(outside the Annoited One, of course. But most defenders of slavery apparently preferred the Old Testament rather than the New, in the Ante-Bellum era)
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top