Stonewall Predestination and motivation

Look at the Generals from the south Lee, Jackson very devout christians and as southerners we are raised differnt than they were up north or thats what i believe. If im wrong im wrong

There were an awful lot of Christians, in New England at least, who kept up a row over abolishing slavery. It was Christianity of a different stripe than that in the South to be sure, but same Bible, etc.
 
There was the whole focus on the "common man" especially starting in the Jacksonian era. Every free American could consider themselves as good as any other, even if they were poor. There was an understanding, of course, that some were richer than others, but there was an abundance of land and anyone could become a landowner. I expect that made predestination fit less well with the American mindset.
 
Very interesting aspects though, but maybe I'm too much of a European to fully understand a society without any form of classes. And to be honest, I even think there is no society where the idea of an "upper" class, either through birth, through money, through intelligence or through political leadership is totally absent. (I did not understand Kilrain's hatred towards "gentlemen" either, that whole speech totally went past me... He had one of the finest examples of a true gentleman, Joshua Chamberlain, sitting next to him and did not notice, IMHO).

Faraway, I've very much enjoyed this thread.

America is "far away" from being a classless society. This idea is one of America's most cherished myths but it is a myth for sure. The "aristocracy" of the southern planters was obliterated by the same war that gave rise to a new industrial-based aristocracy of the super wealthy in the North. It also gave rise to an intellectual elite in New England which continues to set the tone for American culture to this day...... And I'll stop here because there's no way to go further without stepping into politics!
 
I'm sorry if this question has already been discussed, but I was just contemplating about Jackson's calm during battle and his strong belief that whatever happens is predestined. That belief made him calm when he came under fire and let him also forgive the poor soldier who was unfortunate enough to wound him (which ultimately even lead to his death). Probably many of us know his famous quote:
My religious belief teaches me that I am as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time of my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave."

My question is:
Why was Jackson motivated to fight if he believed that no matter what man does, the Lord has already set the fate of everything? Why fighting if nothing can be achieved, nothing can be changed? And even if he saw himself as an instrument of the Lord's will, he must have thought that his opponents were also. So why for example hurrying his "Foot cavalry" when the outcome was already set?
To me this is a contradiction. What do you think?

If you think about it, it's no different today in the 21st century West. Now the accepted worldview in academe -- what is taught and what is expected to be accepted -- is materialism. Everything is matter and laws of physics, nothing else. All is cause and effect. There is no free will; that is a comforting illusion. Yet people who teach this still fret over the future, have anxiety and take actions to effect their futures.....even though that would arguably be irrational.
 
Faraway, I've very much enjoyed this thread.

America is "far away" from being a classless society. This idea is one of America's most cherished myths but it is a myth for sure. The "aristocracy" of the southern planters was obliterated by the same war that gave rise to a new industrial-based aristocracy of the super wealthy in the North. It also gave rise to an intellectual elite in New England which continues to set the tone for American culture to this day...... And I'll stop here because there's no way to go further without stepping into politics!


Ah. Yes but in the American mind it's perceived by these people perhaps- the rest don't necessarily acknowledge the whole set-up. Nor does anyone have to. I find it annoying, no politics there. :smile: It's wonderful to have our intellectuals, I suppose someone must lead industry but please do not ask me ( in general, not aimed at anyone ) to venerate anyone or in any way regard someone a cut or so above ( or below ) me. Catch anyone in 1860 or 2015 dubbing themselves ' the aristocracy ', see how quickly they vanish from public life.

What Faraway said is vastly interesting, the European perspective maybe containing some of what we seemed to have been clinging to in 1861. ( swear it's not off-thread ) There was a huge influence here by Europeans, the British and French but only in some sectors. Was it a hold-over from our genesis or a do-over, the wealthy classes feeling this to be a pretty fait set-up, all things considered? For them I mean.

Religious doctrine may not have stated in the books, as it were, a Who's Who according to God- there are undoubted roles played by earlier churches a little handy sociologically. Dad was a Lutheran Minister, masters, theology; doc religious education- neither of which means I know a thing but he did ensure once in awhile we listened instead of pinching the little sister.

' Fortune theodicies ', I think can be processed under the heading of predestination, no?

" Research on stratification and religion is guided by contradictory theoretical perspectives, but studies consistently highlight the degree to which religion influences and is influenced by social inequality. The consensus is that social factors play an important role in perpetuating America’s religious mosaic. "

" Religious theodicies: Weber suggested that members of different social classes adopt different belief systems, or theodicies, to explain their social situation. The affluent embrace of good fortune theodicies, which emphasize that prosperity is a blessing of God. Good fortune theodicies allow the successful to believe that their success is deserved and that the less fortunate also experience their due. Theodicies of misfortune, on the other hand, appeal to the poor and present a less sanguine picture of worldly success. Theodicies of misfortune emphasize that affluence is a sign of evil and that suffering in this world will be rewarded in the next. Weber suggested that this type of transvaluational orientation has been a characteristic feature of lower class worship. "

" Social class and religious practice: Rich and poor express their religion in different ways. The lower classes are more likely than affluent groups to pray in private, believe in the doctrines of their faith, and have intense religious experiences (Demerath 1965, Davidson 1977); the middle and upper classes are more likely to attend worship services and take part in church organizations and activities. Stark (1972) suggests that the poor show greater religiousness in those aspects of faith that serve as a relief for suffering; the middle and upper classes participate in religious activities that help confirm the legitimacy of their claim to high status. "

The article goes on to say this has changed somewhat post WW1- to keep it relevant am using portions of the study encompassing America's religious genesis through Jackson's time- mostly. It's tough to separate completely because there are cross-overs.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Stratification.htm

REFERENCES
M. Adriance, Opting for the Poor (Kansas City, MO.: Sheed & Ward, 1986);
P. L. Berger, “The Class Struggle in American Religion,” Christian Century 98 (1981): 194-199;
D. B. Billings, “Religion as Opposition,” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1990): 1-31;
G. Burns, The Frontiers of Catholicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992);
H. Cantril, “Educational and Economic Composition of Religious Groups,” American Journal of Sociology 47 (1943): 574-579;
J. D. Davidson, “Socio-Economic Status and Ten Dimensions of Religious Commitment,” Sociology and Social Research 61 (1977): 462-485;
J. D. Davidson, Mobilizing Social Movement Organizations (Storrs, Conn.: Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1985);
J. D. Davidson, “Religion Among America’s Elite,” Sociology of Religion 55 (1994): 419-440;
J. D. Davidson et. Al., “Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment,” Social Forces 74 (1995): 157-175;
N. J. Demereth III, Social Class in American Protestantism (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965);
N. J. Demerath III and P. E. Hammond, Religion in Social Context (New York: Random House, 1969);
J. R. Feagin, Subordinating the Poor (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1975);
R. Finke and R. Stark, The Churching of America (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992);
N. D. Glenn and R. Hyland, “Religious Preference and Worldly Success,” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 73-85;
A. M. Greeley, “Catholics and the Upper Middle Class,” Social Forces 59 (1981): 824-830;
B. W. Hargrove, The Emerging New Class (New York: Pilgrim, 1986);
G. N. Howe, “The Political Economy of American Religion,” in Political Economy, ed. S. McNall (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1981): 110-137;
B. Johnson, “Do Holiness Sects Socialize in Dominant Values?” Social Forces 39 (1961): 309-316;
A. K. Korman, The Outsiders (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1988);
G. T. Marx, “Religion,” American Sociological Review 32 (1967): 64-72;
A. K. Mock, Social Differentiation and Individual Belief, Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1988;
A. D. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Free Press, 1984);
M. A. Neal, The Just Demands of the Poor (New York: Paulist Press, 1987);
L. Pope, “Religion and the Class Structure,” Annals 256 (1948): 84-91;
R. E. Pyle, “Faith and Commitment to the Poor,” Sociology of Religion 54 (1993): 385-401;
R. E. Pyle, Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996);
M. Rokeach, “Religious Values and Social Compassion,” Review of Religious Research 11 (1969): 24-39;
W. C. Roof, “Socioeconomic Differentials Among White Socioreligious Groups in the United States,” Social Forces 58 (1979): 280-289;
W. C. Roof and W. McKinney, American Mainline Religion (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987);
R. Stark, “The Economics of Piety,” in Issues in Social Inequality, ed. G. Thielbar and S. Feldman (Boston: Little Brown, 1972): 483-503;
J. E. Tropman, “The ‘Catholic Ethic’ versus the ‘Protestant Ethic’” Social Thought 12 (1986): 13-22;
M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribner, 1958 [1904-1905]).
 
Something to keep in mind is that most of the Protestant denominations circa 1860 were NOT Calvinist oriented and did not teach the doctrine of predestination. As early as the mid 18th Century Puritan Calvinists (Congregational) ministers in New England were railing against "Arminian" (not Arian) influences which taught that individuals were responsible for not only their behavior here but were also required to work out their salvation in cooperation with God's aid by leading a godly life. Leading the godly life helped merit salvation. Belief in itself was insufficient for salvation. One had to both avoid evil and do good to please the Almighty and thereby merit his grace and favor. This notion of "whatsoever ye do to these, the least of my brethren..." helped inspire the Abolitionists before the war and much of the volunteering that went on in the war, that is many of these "do gooders" were behaving as they believed their religion taught them was essential to the godly life. I suspect that even hard shell Calvinists did much the same thing though they believed that living the godly life did not bring about one's salvation but was rather a sign that they had already been chosen of the elect, those predestined to heaven.

The honest truth is that I don't really think most American Protestants circa 1860 really thought a whole lot about the theology of predestination, Catholics and Jews not at all. I would not be surprised if some of the Civil War Era leaders labelled as Calvinists were indeed backsliding, closet Arminians in actual practice so I am not so sure that Calvinistic predestination had that much of an influence on how they actually behaved. Perhaps it was different then, but I sent my kids to Presbyterian (Scottish version of Calvinism) Sunday school for years and never once over years did they ever come home and tell me they had learned a single blessed thing about predestination in those classes. Being religious circa 1860 did not by any means mean that, for most believers, that anyone was predestined to anything, other than perhaps death and taxes.
 
In Haywood county, Tennessee, the Brown's Creek Primitive Baptist congregation split into two churches over this issue during the 1830's. According to Dorothy Curlin Morris of Brownsville:

Although there were many who “leaned” toward the Primitive Baptist beliefs, only a few ever actually joined the church or were baptized. As it was explained to me, their basic belief was that salvation was predestined for certain people and this particular congregation (I don’t know if this is correct) believed that that people should not join the church unless it had been “revealed” to them that they were among the “elect.” This led to the first split over missions, since the “Hardshells” thought it was useless to try to convert anyone. This same belief led to another division much later. The Forrests and Curlins had already split. Forrests had married Marcoms. They began to disagree, with Marcoms becoming somewhat more liberal. The old liners became known as the “Can’t help its” and theMarcoms the “Can help its.” They finally divided and built another Brown’s Creek Church, which is used for a meeting place still, though all their members are dead.
 
Look at the Generals from the south Lee, Jackson very devout christians and as southerners we are raised differnt than they were up north or thats what i believe. If im wrong im wrong

Just to inform you, there were plenty of Christian Northerners. One of Jackson's particular "victims" at Chancellorsville was Oliver Otis Howard, known as The Christian General by his men. (Even though he was someone I really don't care for!) After the war he was head of the Freedman's Bureau and was genuinely interested in the lives and fate of his black charges. And of course the abolitionists, including John Brown, were all convinced that what they were doing was to advance Christianity. Like you, I don't agree with all their ideas, especially Brown's, but they certainly saw themselves as Christians doing the Lord's Work.
 
My own troubling contradiction about Jackson has always been: How could such a good, saintly man fight for what I believe was an evil cause? There's no easy answer, but my own feelings are well summed up in the close of a prayer offered by a chaplain at the unveiling of a monument to Jackson:

"And Thou knowest, O Lord, that when Thou didst decide that the Confederacy should not succeed, Thou hadst first to remove Thy servant, Stonewall Jackson."​

Remember, despite all the current hoopla about the EVIL slave-mongering Confederacy, that Virginians as a rule didn't show much enthusiasm for secession and war until after Lincoln called for 75,000 "volunteers" to suppress the Rebellion. In the case of many Virginians, especially those from the Shenandoah and Western Virginia where slaves were at a minimum, the prevailing attitude seems to have been that of defending one's Homeland from invasion. (Even though their actions also happened to be "defending" the Peculiar Institution.)
 
Remember, despite all the current hoopla about the EVIL slave-mongering Confederacy, that Virginians as a rule didn't show much enthusiasm for secession and war until after Lincoln called for 75,000 "volunteers" to suppress the Rebellion. In the case of many Virginians, especially those from the Shenandoah and Western Virginia where slaves were at a minimum, the prevailing attitude seems to have been that of defending one's Homeland from invasion. (Even though their actions also happened to be "defending" the Peculiar Institution.)
Well, yes, West Virginia became a separate state for a reason! As for the Shenandoah, I posted a thread sometime back about the Unionists in the Shenandoah Valley, which included a lot of Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Quakers, etc., i.e., members of pacifist sects who were anti-war and anti-slavery. (That movie Shenandoah gets a lot of things wrong, but I think it was right-on-the-mark making Charlie Anderson and his family Shenandoans.) It's sad that because the Shenandoah was also a hotbed for Reb guerrillas, Sheridan ultimately had to inflict so much destruction -- impoverishing and ruining many, many families who were actually very loyal Unionists.
 
I think this is an artifact of modern life. After all, the South has more churches per square foot than anywhere outside of the Vatican, I suppose. But remember that the Great Awakening occurred up North.

True, the Great Awakening(s) occurred in the North, but that had been a while ago by then, and there was nothing in the Union armies to compare with the wave of revivals, camp meetings, and conversions that swept the Southern armies during the winters of 1862-3 and especially 63-4. Of course, there's nothing like hard times - and lost battles and comrades - to turn one to religion in hopes it will appease whatever Deity is relevant!
 
For those struggling to understand the Calvinist view of predestination, I would recommend studying the fourth chapter of either the Westminister Confession or the 1689 Baptist Confession, titled God's Decree (they are identical).

An earlier post referenced a secondary source claim that Jackson apparently struggled with this doctrine, as well as paedobaptism, but I did not see the citation? Would someone mind pointing me to the primary source?
 
Back
Top