Spirituality And Religion

No such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, that's how I see it through my little military experience. The "majority" of people get religion when death is imminent, so I assure you that Salvation was the primary role of spirituality during the CW from both sides.

I suppose the war was viewed by "some" northern boys as a holy crusade to free the slaves from all the servitude they had to endure. Perhaps like Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
Actually there are plenty of attheists in fox holes. Modern history is full of them. Religion was more widespread in the Nineteenth Century but we don't know if many people went to church because they believed in a particular religion or they didn't want to be social pariahs.
Leftyhunter
 
I am not sure where else to put this thread. Is there a forum for discussions of the role of spirituality and/or religion in the civil war? I don't want to start an argument. I just want to discuss how people viewed the war with respect to their own or someone else's religious beliefs or lack thereof.
In the autobiography of Elisha Hunt Rhodes who rose from private to Colonel commanding the 2nd Rhode Island Infantry one of the AoPs most battle tested regiments; Rhodes noted that many men early in the war were apathetic to religion but became more religious over time. That is not to say all of his men felt that way.
Leftyhunter
 
I would like to know what people like Lincoln and Jackson believed and how their beliefs affected their actions. Could they have been among the most successful because of their reliance on a higher power?

Jackson was a devout and active Christian, a deacon of the Presbyterian church he was a member of. All I have read seems to suggest he had no "unorthodox" beliefs, meaning, as a presbyterian he held to the Westminster Confession of Faith. His absolute reliance on God, and his belief that God ordains all that comes to pass for His own purposes, is well known.

Lincoln is a bit of an enigma for many historians because he was never a member of a church and was not publicly devout or practicing as was Jackson. Many who knew him best said he was a devout and well-practiced politician, but not a Christian... as such though, he could definitely turn a phrase. Some suggest his second inaugural address was his "sermon on the mount". And while he may have attended the Presbyterian church in D.C., perhaps what his longtime friend and partner William Herndon wrote about it shortly after his assassination,

"At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. He believed that the soul lost its identity and was immortal as a force. Subsequent to this he rose to the belief of a God, and this is all the change he ever underwent. I speak knowing what I say. He was a noble man - a good great man for all this."

From all that I have read about Lincoln, I doubt that I could get to the place of thinking he had a devout faith or a reliance on the Almighty. But then, this too would inform the man and guide his decisions, wouldn't it?
 
Actually there are plenty of attheists in fox holes. Modern history is full of them. Religion was more widespread in the Nineteenth Century but we don't know if many people went to church because they believed in a particular religion or they didn't want to be social pariahs.
Leftyhunter

Well, I said through my experience I did not seem to run into any atheists :smile:. All I'm saying is that it would be difficult to measure Jackson's spirituality but not so hard to measure his religiosity. There is a difference.
 
Well, I said through my experience I did not seem to run into any atheists :smile:. All I'm saying is that it would be difficult to measure Jackson's spirituality but not so hard to measure his religiosity. There is a difference.
I wouldn't know by what metric we could examine spiritually. We know people in the ACW and other conflicts spent a lot of time discussing various religious viewpoints on why God favored their side and hated the other side.
Leftyhunter
 
Jackson was a devout and active Christian, a deacon of the Presbyterian church he was a member of. All I have read seems to suggest he had no "unorthodox" beliefs, meaning, as a presbyterian he held to the Westminster Confession of Faith. His absolute reliance on God, and his belief that God ordains all that comes to pass for His own purposes, is well known.

Lincoln is a bit of an enigma for many historians because he was never a member of a church and was not publicly devout or practicing as was Jackson. Many who knew him best said he was a devout and well-practiced politician, but not a Christian... as such though, he could definitely turn a phrase. Some suggest his second inaugural address was his "sermon on the mount". And while he may have attended the Presbyterian church in D.C., perhaps what his longtime friend and partner William Herndon wrote about it shortly after his assassination,

"At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. He believed that the soul lost its identity and was immortal as a force. Subsequent to this he rose to the belief of a God, and this is all the change he ever underwent. I speak knowing what I say. He was a noble man - a good great man for all this."

From all that I have read about Lincoln, I doubt that I could get to the place of thinking he had a devout faith or a reliance on the Almighty. But then, this too would inform the man and guide his decisions, wouldn't it?
While we may not know if Lincoln followed a particular religion we do know he always reviled slavery. Politics and religion is based on ones likes and dislikes so yes beliefs influence policy.
Leftyhunter
 
I wouldn't know by what metric we could examine spiritually. We know people in the ACW and other conflicts spent a lot of time discussing various religious viewpoints on why God favored their side and hated the other side.
Leftyhunter

Precisely my point. According to mainstream religious dogma, Jackson was on a losing side and died prematurely so his religiosity did not garner him any favor. I'm not saying that's the case, but like I said the other day any author in their right mind wouldn't try to delve into that subject because it is too finite and is subject to ridicule and critique. George Washington was extremely religious, but he was on the winning side and he stayed alive, so his spirituality in not questioned. It appears God intervened on his behalf, but it appears God did not intervene on Jackson's behalf. This is how some people view things. Imo, it would be in good taste if Jackson's so-called spirituality would be continued to be overlooked.
 
What's wrong with a fiery anti-slavery message? I'm thinking that 99.99% of people today consider that to be a settled issue.

And that was the point I made in one of those posts, we have to beware of overlaying our 21st C thought over what was thought, said, and done in the mid 19th C. Most definitely, slavery is evil and that IS a settled issue. Today. But if by "settled" we mean 99% then, well that just wasn't the case in the early 1800's... it took the U.S.A. a couple hundred years to work through to what we see as settled thought today.

There is nothing "wrong" with fiery anti-slavery messages, as long as we remember in the 1800's there were 2 sides to the debate, neither of which had attained the 99% at that time. So, focusing only on the evil southern preachers with their pro-slavery messages but ignoring the kind of fiery anti-slaver messages that on one hand built up the devout but on the other influenced men like John Brown, well, just seems to me to be not telling the complete 18th C story.

Meaning no disrespect to anyone here... the longer I study this stuff, the more convinced I am that it is some of the most complex history you could set yourselves to studying. It ain't easy, or clean, or obvious. (which is why it takes a home library of 67 gazzilion books 😁 )
 
And that was the point I made in one of those posts, we have to beware of overlaying our 21st C thought over what was thought, said, and done in the mid 19th C. Most definitely, slavery is evil and that IS a settled issue. Today. But if by "settled" we mean 99% then, well that just wasn't the case in the early 1800's... it took the U.S.A. a couple hundred years to work through to what we see as settled thought today.

There is nothing "wrong" with fiery anti-slavery messages, as long as we remember in the 1800's there were 2 sides to the debate, neither of which had attained the 99% at that time. So, focusing only on the evil southern preachers with their pro-slavery messages but ignoring the kind of fiery anti-slaver messages that on one hand built up the devout but on the other influenced men like John Brown, well, just seems to me to be not telling the complete 18th C story.

Meaning no disrespect to anyone here... the longer I study this stuff, the more convinced I am that it is some of the most complex history you could set yourselves to studying. It ain't easy, or clean, or obvious. (which is why it takes a home library of 67 gazzilion books 😁 )

Yep. And as for the fiery abolitionists, abolition was just one of their 'causes.' They were also generally anti-immigrant (because many were Catholic) and against the use of alcohol (also went along with the immigrant stance as many of them, e.g. Germans, drank). To really understand the true abolitionists we have to understand their religious beliefs.

Many in the northern states were not in favor of slavery or at least not in their state but weren't abolitionists. I think most folks in the day would have been OK with slavery staying where it was as long as they didn't have any where they lived. They didn't want free blacks, either. It's complicated and trying to paint a simple, two-sided picture is just choosing to ignore the history.
 
Precisely my point. According to mainstream religious dogma, Jackson was on a losing side and died prematurely so his religiosity did not garner him any favor. I'm not saying that's the case, but like I said the other day any author in their right mind wouldn't try to delve into that subject because it is too finite and is subject to ridicule and critique. George Washington was extremely religious, but he was on the winning side and he stayed alive, so his spirituality in not questioned. It appears God intervened on his behalf, but it appears God did not intervene on Jackson's behalf. This is how some people view things. Imo, it would be in good taste if Jackson's so-called spirituality would be continued to be overlooked.

With all due respect..."According to mainstream religious dogma" according to who? Jackson didn't believe what he believed so that he could garner favor or insure the South would win. In fact, he was very self-effacing where God's will and purpose were concerned, and what he expected God to do. Believing like he did was at the core of who the man was and helps us understand him better... to overlook those things would give us a stickman/caricature who, granted, would look even more eccentric than he does anyway. Winning a war and garnering favor from the Almighty were not the religious motivations for Jackson, or Washington, or Lincoln.

I understand that not everyone is comfortable thinking about (much less talking about) religion and spirituality. But understanding what each man believed and how that belief system informed their decisions and actions, well, that's pretty important imho.
 
look up E M Bounds Was against session but went as a Chaplin and was at the Battle of Franklin 1864 The troops look at the wee little man with his knap sack many gave him their personal effects he end up wounded . came back to franklin wrote 20 plus on prayer … will have to find my book...
 
Precisely my point. According to mainstream religious dogma, Jackson was on a losing side and died prematurely so his religiosity did not garner him any favor. I'm not saying that's the case, but like I said the other day any author in their right mind wouldn't try to delve into that subject because it is too finite and is subject to ridicule and critique. George Washington was extremely religious, but he was on the winning side and he stayed alive, so his spirituality in not questioned. It appears God intervened on his behalf, but it appears God did not intervene on Jackson's behalf. This is how some people view things. Imo, it would be in good taste if Jackson's so-called spirituality would be continued to be overlooked.
Spiritually is a trickey subject first how do we define spiritually? Depending on how we define spiritually it could mean that ninety percent or more of the world's population is spiritual. No doubt religion or spiritually did heavily influence Jackson but by the same token many other ACW era figures.
One could argue that if war is a politics by other means so are theological disputes.
Clearly religion was deviseve I.e. Southeren Methodists and Presbyterian Church vs the Northenern Church's.
Leftyhunter
 
I am not sure where else to put this thread. Is there a forum for discussions of the role of spirituality and/or religion in the civil war? I don't want to start an argument. I just want to discuss how people viewed the war with respect to their own or someone else's religious beliefs or lack thereof.
We also have to keep in mind and acknowledge the role of religion and or spiritually in the Afro-American community. By no means we're the Afro Americans a monolithic religious community.
Leftyhunter
 
Once again, I would turn to Mark Twain for a satirically insightful contemporary's take on the matter.

https://warprayer.org/
That's an excellent article. I am assuming Twain is referencing Hannibal, Missouri Circa April 1861 and the young men are joining the Confederate Army.
It's my understanding that Twain tried his hand as a Confederate guerrilla in Missouri for a few weeks or so then decided that California was the place to be. Is that about right?
Leftyhunter
 
Just as an aside on this thread, I've been watching a program about young footballers in the South whose coach requires them to 'take a knee' after each game, and at other times, where they say the Our Father. There is no question of language catering to religion, and interjected in prayer at one time was the desire for players to be 'vicious and violent' in their efforts to win the game. That struck me as kind of odd as part of a prayer, but also opened my eyes to a different kind of mentality when it comes to religion at times. It can be thought of as weak and purile, but back in the day (as it is still sometimes now) it was a testament to strength and endurance. It was a 'man's religion. And a fighting man's religion at that.
Arguably all human conflict has some religious roots or reasons.
Leftyhunter
 
Arguably all human conflict has some religious roots or reasons.
Leftyhunter
That's not what I was talking about @leftyhunter. Your statement makes it seem as though conflict is caused by religion, and while that may be true in some cases, it is not the purpose of most religions. Conflict relates to disagreement and sometimes this is related to religion. What you are missing is the sustenance that spirituality provides to those who accept such beliefs.
 
Back
Top