Religious Persecution

[TFSmith121]

They were not, however, the order was the persecutory act in this case.

Okay, fair enough. Not something to overlook, but an order that is\was, essentially, not understood as such as far as the troops and unenforced seems distant from persecution per se.

Best,

 

[Pat Young]

Okay, fair enough. Not something to overlook, but an order that is\was, essentially, not understood as such as far as the troops and unenforced seems distant from persecution per se.

Best,

I disagree

 

[Legion Para]

Antisemi Hartwell, post: 1420353, member: 5391"]When you use the term "religious persecution," you suggest an official policy at some level. I've seen absolutely no evidence of that.

Within a specific unit, or under the jurisdiction of individual officers, there may conceivably have been some degree of preference shown to one denomination or another, or discouragement of members of another denomination. Nothing even vaguely suggesting "persecution," I think, unless on very small scale. But, again, I have seen no actual evidence of it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Within the Union army, at least, at established posts (forts, garrisons, winter encampments, etc) we occasionally find mention of services, prayer meetings, Bible study, etc opportunities for multiple denominations.

Perhaps you can give us a few examples of the kinds of "persecution" you are talking about?[/QUOTE]


I am talking about active duty personnel.

I am not talking about civilians.

The term 'religious persecution' is the proper term and it definitely does not suggest an official policy. Such an official policy would be illegal.

There is no official policy in the United States Military concerning sexual discrimination and yet it exists.

I did not mention any religious group in my initial posting. During WW II there was a great deal of persecution of Jewish soldiers. Not just in the US Army, but also in the British and Canadian armies as well.

For lack of a better term, did antisemitism exist in the Union and Confederate armies?

 

[TFSmith121]

I disagree

Okay. Kind of a slender reed, however.

The careers of Commodore Levy and both Major and Brigadier General Mordecai provide a pretty reasonable picture of what confronted Jewish officers in the Nineteenth Century; however unpleasant some incidents may have been, persecution it was not.

Here's Stanley Falk's short biography of the elder Mordecai:

http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/1958_10_02_00_falk.pdf

Best,

 

[leftyhunter]

Antisemi Hartwell, post: 1420353, member: 5391"]When you use the term "religious persecution," you suggest an official policy at some level. I've seen absolutely no evidence of that.

Within a specific unit, or under the jurisdiction of individual officers, there may conceivably have been some degree of preference shown to one denomination or another, or discouragement of members of another denomination. Nothing even vaguely suggesting "persecution," I think, unless on very small scale. But, again, I have seen no actual evidence of it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Within the Union army, at least, at established posts (forts, garrisons, winter encampments, etc) we occasionally find mention of services, prayer meetings, Bible study, etc opportunities for multiple denominations.

Perhaps you can give us a few examples of the kinds of "persecution" you are talking about?

I am talking about active duty personnel.

I am not talking about civilians.

The term 'religious persecution' is the proper term and it definitely does not suggest an official policy. Such an official policy would be illegal.

There is no official policy in the United States Military concerning sexual discrimination and yet it exists.

I did not mention any religious group in my initial posting. During WW II there was a great deal of persecution of Jewish soldiers. Not just in the US Army, but also in the British and Canadian armies as well.

For lack of a better term, did antisemitism exist in the Union and Confederate armies?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't aware of persecution of Jewish soldiers in aft mentioned armies. Perhaps it wasn't well publicized during WW2 because it was embarrassing. By persecution do you mean that some officers looked the other way while Jews and or other religious service men where bullied? Was it just a case of small cliques of soldiers assaulting non Protestant servicemen? In other words was this like high school bullying where the teacher are unaware of bullying or is it like teachers who are aware and just turn a blind eye to it?
Leftyhunter

 

[Pat Young]

Okay. Kind of a slender reed, however.

The careers of Commodore Levy and both Major and Brigadier General Mordecai provide a pretty reasonable picture of what confronted Jewish officers in the Nineteenth Century; however unpleasant some incidents may have been, persecution it was not.

Here's Stanley Falk's short biography of the elder Mordecai:

http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/1958_10_02_00_falk.pdf

Best,

An official order from a commanding general stigmatizing Jews is hardly a "slender reed."

 

[matthew mckeon]

So far, Pat is the only one whose posted an actual incident. Does many one else have any incidents, 1861-65, involving Union or Confederate troops, targeting other Union or Confederate troops, on religious grounds?

 

[thomas aagaard]

This is the original version of the 2nd amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"

Think this show the legal tradition of it religion being an acceptable reason for not wanting to kill.
It might have influenced the legal system...
But since this was not the version that ended up in the text and most Americans would properly not know, I don't think it had much influence on the population.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Northern Baptists persuaded the War Department that Southern Baptist Churches in occupied areas should be closed and not reopened unless a loyal preacher could be found to pastor. Since this was a virtual impossibility given that Southern clergy were solidly secessionist, they offered to provide loyal clergy from the Northern Baptist Conference. More of a land grab or hostile takeover than an ideological persecution, it nevertheless caused long years of hard feelings and delayed reconciliation between the Baptist bodies after the war.

 

[5fish]

What about the Irish deserters of Mexican-American War called the Saint Patrick Battalion or by their Spanish name "San Patricios". These were Irish men who deserted the American army because they were persecuted for being Catholic. Not only did they desert, they went over to the Mexican side and fought for them against their fellow Americans. In the end, they were captured and hung and others were branded on their faces the letter " D". You should read their story. The last thing the ones being hung saw was "Old Glory" bring raised in victory...

 

[TFSmith121]

An official order from a commanding general stigmatizing Jews is hardly a "slender reed."

Again, not arguing against that with regards to civilians, but the OP very clearly stated his interest was in regards to military personnel. I've offered the careers of three officers as examples of why "persecution" would not seem to apply; "prejudice" is not, at least in my book, the same thing.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

What about the Irish deserters of Mexican-American War called the Saint Patrick Battalion or by their Spanish name "San Patricios". These were Irish men who deserted the American army because they were persecuted for being Catholic. Not only did they desert, they went over to the Mexican side and fought for them against their fellow Americans. In the end, they were captured and hung and others were branded on their faces the letter " D". You should read their story. The last thing the ones being hung saw was "Old Glory" bring raised in victory...

The execution of traitors is hardly persecution. Again, in a society where Catholics were among the web and weave going back to the Calverts, "persecution" seems rather overstated.

Persecution would be if the population of an overwhelmingly Catholic country dropped by 50 percent in the course of a decade due to official government policy.

Now, there were plenty of people who were persecuted by official US government policy in the antebellum period; they tended not to be adult white males, however.

NINA and chattel slavery or the Trail of Tears aren't really comparable, and religion or lack thereof was pretty low on the list of things one got persecuted for, after race, gender, and class...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

So far, Pat is the only one whose posted an actual incident. Does many one else have any incidents, 1861-65, involving Union or Confederate troops, targeting other Union or Confederate troops, on religious grounds?

Good question. There have been a couple of studies of Jews and what we'd refer to as religious dissenters (Quakers, etc) in the US army during the war; nothing comes directly to mind other than the general sort of "110 percent" performance requirement that minorities in military service have generally demonstrated when it comes to the concept of "proving their loyalty"...

Best,

 

[damYankee]

Keep in mind that in 1858 the US government sent US troops to Utah to defeat the Mormons, who had been persecuted for years.
It was a defacto national policy.
The fact is religion has always been used for political ends, how many Southern churches openly supported Slavery?
Talk about religious persecution.

 

[TFSmith121]

Keep in mind that in 1858 the US government sent US troops to Utah to defeat the Mormons, who had been persecuted for years.
It was a defacto national policy.
The fact is religion has always been used for political ends, how many Southern churches openly supported Slavery?
Talk about religious persecution.

Except the US effort in Utah was, all things considered, bloodless.

Mountain Meadows was not, of course, any more than Kansas was, but the US forces in both territories were there largely in terms of aid to the civil power. The LDS certainly had been persecuted in Illinois and Missouri, but that appears to have been due largely policy decided upon at the state level, not federal.

Best,

 

[GELongstreet]

Except the US effort in Utah was, all things considered, bloodless. ...

Remember that persecution isn't limited to killing and bloodless doesn´t mean that no harm is done.

 

[damYankee]

Except the US effort in Utah was, all things considered, bloodless.

Mountain Meadows was not, of course, any more than Kansas was, but the US forces in both territories were there largely in terms of aid to the civil power. The LDS certainly had been persecuted in Illinois and Missouri, but that appears to have been due largely policy decided upon at the state level, not federal.

Best,

US forces led by Gen Albert Johnson.
You are correct, the Mormons were harassed from Illinois and Missouri fled to Utah, religious persecution, tolerated and made public policy by Buchanan.
Then on to my second point, religious persecution of a totally different kind, one in which religion was used to endorse the persecution of the Africans brought here as slaves, and manipulated by pro slavery supporters to reinforce the belief that the black man had no soul, was nothing more then a beast of burden, given to the white man by no less than God himself.
So we focus our indignation on US Grant, for his one order, which was never enforced, was rescinded and who in fact was a few years later not only forgiven by the leaders of the Jewish community in America but was endorsed by them in his bid for the White House.

 

[James B White]

This is the order given by Lillburn Boggs, Governor of Missouri:

Headquarters of the Militia, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.

Gen. John B. Clark:

Sir: Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids [sic], information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Willock, of Marion county, to raise five hundred men, and to march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with five hundred men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express, you can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead therefore of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and then operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.

I am very respectfully, yr obt st [your obedient servant],

L. W. Boggs, Commander-in-Chief

I think the main problem is that Boggs identified people by their religion, rather than their actions. Boggs may have had justification in dealing with some Mormons that way, but it was because they threatened people, etc., not because they were Mormons. Or at least that's how we'd (hopefully) see it today.

The citizens of Jackson County sent a list of complaints that showed they weren't just concerned about lawbreaking either. They included:

[Mormons] openly blaspheme the Most High God, and cast contempt on His holy religion, by pretending to receive revelations direct from heaven, by pretending to speak unknown tongues, by direct inspiration, and by diverse pretenses derogatory to God and religion, and to the utter subversion of human reason.

So it was pretty clear they wanted Mormons gone because of their religious beliefs. I certainly hope any citizens who sent such a complaint today would be laughed at as nutjobs, and the governor would see what laws were being broken on either side, then toss their complaint out, not take it seriously. It meets the definition of persecution squarely, but it's not during 1861-1865 or in the army, if those are the parameters. Though it's in the militia, both sides didn't even try to get along, and just formed separate militias.

 

[5fish]

The American Catholic church took a neutral position in the civil war...

On the eve of the Civil War, as citizens were taking sides, and taking up arms, leading Unionists questioned where the Church stood on the issues of slavery and secession. In May 1861, the Third Provincial Council of Cincinnati attempted to clarify the Catholic position on the crisis. The Council stated that the "spirit of the Catholic Church is eminently conservative and while her ministers rightfully feel a deep and abiding interest in all that concerns the welfare of the country, they do not think it their province to enter the political arena." It further elaborated on the Catholic "unity of spirit" that recognized "no North, no South, no East, no West." Yet historian Mark Noll states that the American Catholic position, while not as "fully developed domestically as they were abroad" created a theological challenge to prevailing American beliefs. Catholics challenged the Protestant notions that linked democracy and Christianity, capitalism and Christianity, and the individualism Protestants interpreted from scripture. Noll stated in his book The Civil War as a Theological Crisis that the Catholic position "amounted to a fundamental assessment of prevailing beliefs and practices that American protestants, whose main principles were so closely intertwined with the nation's dominant ideologies, could not deliver." Northern theologians could not understand Catholic misgivings about the abolitionist movement, with its willingness to break the law for its goals, and Know Nothing roots, while Southern radicals could not abide the Church's sympathy for and identification with the plight and suffering of slaves. Furthermore, while Protestant denominations split along sectional lines and theological interpretations of slavery, even to the point of advocating war, the Catholic Church seemed maddeningly united and suspiciously neutral during the secession crisis.


Here is the link it goes into more detail.... http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-l...d-catholic-soldiers-catholic-church-during-am

 

[damYankee]

I hope this discussion continues