(no subject)
This is the rest of the paper I posted that snatch of a few hours ago.
<>
A Church Divided
“…Religion for both good and ill was at the very heart of the Civil War experience.” [i] The passionate writings of those on both sides crying foul against the other did so calling the same God to vindicated their cause. The conflict, which would split the nation in two, split the national Protestant denominations in two first; and, though the denominational splits didn’t cause the war, they “aggravated and accelerated the causes”. [ii] While the war helped to turn the nation toward war, the war in turn changed the angle from which those involved viewed their faith, and it set in motion theological questions and debates that are being argued to this day.
“Religion shaped the responses of many Americans to both slavery and the war.” [iii] It is not surprising then that the city that birthed the Revolution would not too long after bring forth a revolution of another kind-abolition. “…Against the backdrop of church-led efforts to eradicate dueling, curb alcohol abuse, improve prisons and encourage literacy, religious leaders argued against slaveholding, particularly by Christians.” [iv] On July 4, 1829, the first anti-slavery speech issued by William Lloyd Garrison was given from the pulpit of Park Street Church in Boston, and the call for change began. [v] The North wanted change and their religion demanded it.
The “City on a Hill” doctrine, which crossed the ocean with the Puritans, left an indelible mark on New England religion [vi]. The City on a Hill doctrine was a mission that the Puritans brought with them to become a moral society and an example for the entire world. The society built by the Puritans was a Christian society, and though the nation would not eventually be set up as a theocracy, the doctrine of creating a morally pure nation never left the minds of the people.
Slavery for them was a moral issue. “If God’s grace is available to all, and all are qualified to receive it, Northern ministers asked, how could human bondage be justified?” [vii] Many believed that it was hypocrisy to claim to be Christians while allowing slavery within their borders, and hypocrisy had no place in their City on a Hill. Frederick Douglass spoke for this sentiment when he said,
…Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference-so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, woman-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this Land. [viii]
The foundations of the society of the South were not laid by the Puritans, so they were largely apathetic to this mission of their ambitious sister states. As such, and in contrast with Douglass’s opinion, they viewed slavery as an opportunity to bring converts to Christianity. They even argued, “Without slavery…’heathen’ souls would have been lost to a literal hell in which most 19th century Americans deeply believed”. [ix] To them, slavery was a benevolent institution that was forced on them by the North and undertaken at great cost. To the sufferings and destruction inflicted on many slaves by abusive masters, they responded that slavery was the natural consequence of their race’s sin. “The Old Testament was filled with examples of human slavery, and nowhere was it condemned in the New Testament…” [x] Their dark skin was the mark of Cain and the curse of ham, and their subjugation was natural.
In light of these differences, it was inevitable that the two approaches to morality would clash. Each of the national Protestant denominations split at least once North and South before the Civil War “beginning with the Presbyterians in 1837…followed by the Methodists in 1843, and the Baptists in 1845...” [xi] These splits heightened awareness of the differences between the two societies, and it could be said that the nation split because the churches had split already. [xii]
Only the Episcopal Church would split after the war. The church as a whole was filled with a “dread of schism [and a] fear that division in the political realm would be multiplied by division in the church.” [xiii] The Episcopal Church was the last denomination to split, and the only reason the denomination split in the first place was because the nation split. The South believed that the church should be a national church, and when the South became a new nation, it was very natural to them that there should be a church to match, so in 1862 the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Confederate States of America held its first General Convention. [xiv]
Though it was debated heatedly during the 1862 convention, the Episcopal Church (USA) ultimately decided to approach the split much the same way that Abraham Lincoln did in the beginning of the war. They believed that the nation would eventually rejoin, and the church treated the seceded dioceses at the 1862 General Convention as though they were absent instead of gone completely from the convention. [xv] In the process they made it easy for the dioceses to rejoin when the nation came together again.
Unlike Lincoln’s political attempt, this approach proved effective. The south rejoined the church soon after the war, and the seceding churches were welcomed as if they had never left. [xvi] The general attitude was that the South should be free to try the experiment for a while and be allowed to see that the union was the best place for them. Rev. Dr. C.S. Henry put it eloquently, “Let them eat the fruit of their own doings: let them be filled with their own devices… But perhaps it is the best way to open their foolish eyes. They will find the Union was the only buttress for their slavery.” [xvii]
If the Episcopal Church was able to handle to handle the war so well, why did it take some of the other denominations until as late as the 20th Century to reunite while some never reunited at all? Part of it was in regards to a weakness on the part of the Episcopal Church. The church didn’t know how to deal with outside social issues, so it chose not to deal with them at all. [xviii]
Even if they had known how to deal with social movements, the church was busy with quibbling of its own over Anglo-Catholicism, a new movement in the Episcopal Church which sought to revive some of the meaningful traditions of Roman Catholicism that were abandoned when Henry VIII abandoned Rome. [xix] This new movement proposed innovations in the liturgy and reinstated such things as colorful clothing, incense, and candles.
Not surprising, this controversy started in Boston and centered on Church of the Advent in the same neighborhood as Park Street Church. Unlike the controversy hosted by Park Street, however, Advent’s controversy was something that the North and South could agree on. Anti-Catholic church leaders on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line agreed that the candles had to go, so instead of fighting each other along sectional lines, the Episcopal Church was fighting each other along liturgical lines. Wrestling over these things of such great importance took up too much time for the church to officially worry about the rumblings the nation about to break out into civil war. The inability to deal with social issues and the distraction caused by upstart Anglo-Catholics combined with many other minor factors meant that the Episcopal Church was able to survive the war without many scars. [xx]
The Union was not so lucky, however. The United States followed the path of the other more socially active denominations and split divisively. As such, the two sides clearly felt the consequences of their division. The war brought more death and suffering than the nation had ever known, and it was forced to wrestle with how this new situation could be aligned with what they felt of God.
In the face of overwhelming casualties, the most obvious way that the Civil War changed American Christianity was how Americans viewed death. “The battlefield offers the extreme challenge to the belief that man can control his fate… Soldiers quickly become fatalists.” [xxi] When a human being faces the possibility of death on a regular basis, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that one will never die. The proximity of Civil War soldiers to death manifest itself in the numerous revivals and approximately 150,000 conversions that took place in both armies. [xxii]
It is true that Christianity was the religion that was closest to most soldiers, but the conversions could be explained in part by the fact that “ministers on both sides suggested that death on the battlefield would mean immediate admission to heaven”. [xxiii] With 1.1 million casualties, the afterlife was important to both the men who faced death and those who lost loved ones. “Some historians suggest that the war reshaped popular conceptions of an afterlife, as people and the church struggled to cope with unimaginable losses… Popular notions of heaven changed from a vague and distant place where the dead were with God to a more concrete, detailed place that looked like home.” [xxiv]
God’s control over the small circumstances of individuals’ lives was a common believe among Christians during the Civil War. [xxv] This idea brought comfort to individual soldiers who needed to feel as though they had divine protection, but it brought it also contributed to the war effort on both sides. Both sides worshipped the same God, through the same denominations, and both believed that God was on their side. [xxvi] If God directed individual affairs, how much more does He direct the moment of armies? Naturally, the idea of God’s divine intervention was a popular belief on both sides. They believed that “military victory depended on God’s will and was given to those whom God favored.” [xxvii]
Abraham Lincoln certainly held this belief. “As the war continued, Lincoln talked increasingly about God’s purpose in human history…When someone once assured him that God was on the Union’s side, Lincoln responded that his hopes ran in the other direction, that he preferred that the Union might be on God’s side.” [xxviii] He believed that slavery was a sin bad enough for God to intervene, and he increasingly believed that it was God’s will that the Civil War come to end slavery. [xxix] It seemed the more Lincoln believed this, the better things got for the North.
On August 21, 1863, just under a month and three weeks after Gettysburg, Jefferson Davis called for a day of prayer and fasting over the South’s sins, believing that the sins of the South were affecting the progress of the war. [xxx] Stephen Elliot, Bishop of Georgia gave special instructions to those in his diocese to follow a service similar to that used on Ash Wednesday, the fast day that begins Lent, accompanied by a prayer pleading with God to restore success to the Confederate armies. On this feast day, Elliot preached a sermon of note, which spelled out eloquently the concerns and questions vexing Confederates at the time.
The first question that Elliot addresses is, “If God is on our side, why were we defeated at Gettysburg?” Put another way, “Why does God allow people to experience pain?” He begins answering this by saying, “It is a visitation from God, to teach us our own weakness; it is the hiding of his countenance from our rulers, from our armies and from our people to make us understand that present victory and final success depend altogether upon his presence and favour.” [xxxi] Here Elliot reiterated the popular belief that pain is a tool to spur a Christian on to both righteousness and humility. It was this sentiment that inspired Davis to call for the day of fasting in the first place. He seems to be saying that God isn’t content with His will being done, but He requires that it be perfectly clear that it was His will that was done, and He was the one doing it.
He then goes on to address the threat that the Confederates might actually lose. He says that this could mean that they were deceived in thinking that God was on their side, or it could mean that God is unreliable. [xxxii] He doesn’t even address the second option, but the first option is unthinkable to him because he can’t imagine that God could possibly be on the side of those who want to keep them enslaved. [xxxiii] He then goes on to enumerate the wrongs that the Union has perpetrated against them, and he concludes his answer to this question by saying that if they lose, it is because there are those who have been cruel to their slaves. [xxxiv] Fully assured that their fasting will appease God, he urges those in attendance to join God’s cause and throw everything they have into the war effort because if the Confederates don’t align themselves with God, they will be subject to occupation. Even if it isn’t clear why to our 21st Century eyes, the South did lose, and for a time they were subject to occupation. Elliot was wrong, and things did change for the South.
One of his complaints against the North was that “Instead of believing in the curse of God upon sin… they determined that human effort could remove them all… They did not work that the evils of social life might fade out quietly under the influence of Christianity, but they defied God because there were any social evils at all.” [xxxv] He is referring here to the City on a Hill doctrine that wanted to clean up society to make it presentable. They did win the war, and this gave them the opportunity to instate reforms that would bring the whole nation in line with their reforms, but things ended up being the opposite of what either of them had hoped. “The emergence of Jim Crow, scientific thinking, and agnosticism, during the post-war years not only raised questions about the very principles upon which northern victory ultimately rested, but also prompted issues about the immutable law of God’s governance of human history.” [xxxvi] Was Elliot right? The North’s principles were honorable by today’s standards, so why was the state of the country after the war the opposite of what they wanted?
It is not our place to judge why the Civil War didn’t end the way anyone wanted at the time. It could be that neither side was entirely in the wrong, or maybe God doesn’t control world events as minutely as those in 19th Century America believed. Abraham Lincoln put it this way in his Second Inaugural Address, “The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” [xxxvii] Despite the question of God’s role in history, it is certain that Christianity had a profound effect on how Americans responded to the Civil War, and in turn the Civil War had a profound affect on how Americans look at religion.
Perhaps Elliot was right after all. Maybe the Civil War was a call for America to practice introspection and repentance. Maybe the City on a Hill doctrine of the North was a noble one in theory but not brought about the right way in practice. Perhaps the biggest tragedy of all is that in winning the war the North lost the very thing that they were fighting for.
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. [xxxviii]
[i] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 1 [15 Nov 2004]
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Paul Revere Memorial Association. (2003) < http://www.paulreverehouse.org/freedom.shtml >. [6 Dec 2004].
[vi] James A. Morone. “The Struggle for American Culture,” PS, (September 1996), 2. [6 Dec 2004].
[vii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2.
[viii] Frederick Douglass. “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave.” In The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Volume B, ed. Nina Baym, 2093.
[ix] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid, 1-2.
[xiii] J.M. Stanton. “Episcopal Church History Part 2: Missionary Period through the Civil War” < http://www.bishop.jmstanton.com/Anglican/notes_Episcopal_History_2.htm >, 3. [15 Nov 2004].
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] C.S. Henry. “A Clerical Opinion,” The New York Times, (February 1861), 3.
[xviii] J.M. Stanton. “Episcopal Church History Part 2: Missionary Period through the Civil War” < http://www.bishop.jmstanton.com/Anglican/notes_Episcopal_History_2.htm >, 9. [15 Nov 2004].
[xix] Ibid.
[xx] Ibid, 1-3 + 9.
[xxi] James M. McPherson. Cause and Comrades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 62.
<> [xxii] Christianity and the Civil War, Christian History Volume 11, (1992), 1.
[xxiii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2
[xxiv] Ibid.
[xxv] James M. McPherson. Cause and Comrades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 64.
[xxvi] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2
[xxvii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2
[xxviii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 3
[xxix] Abraham Lincoln. “With Malice Toward None,” In The Civil War and Reconstruction, ed. William E. Gienapp, 300.
[xxx] Stephen Elliot. Ezra’s Dilemna: A Sermon Preached in Christ Church Savannah, on Friday, August 21st, 1863, Being the Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, Appointed by the President of the Confederate States, (August 1863), 4.
[xxxi] Ibid., 7.
[xxxii] Ibid., 7-8.
[xxxiii] Ibid, 8.
[xxxiv] Ibid., 12.
[xxxv] Ibid., 14.
[xxxvi] Kent A. McConnell. “Constructing Religious Meaning for Children Out of the American Civil War.” Journal of Religion and Society. Volume: 3, (2001): 9.
[xxxvii] Abraham Lincoln. “With Malice Toward None,” In The Civil War and Reconstruction, ed. William E. Gienapp, 300.
[xxxviii] 1 Corinthians 3:12-14 New International Version.
Caution! Very rough draft.
<>
A Church Divided
“…Religion for both good and ill was at the very heart of the Civil War experience.” [i] The passionate writings of those on both sides crying foul against the other did so calling the same God to vindicated their cause. The conflict, which would split the nation in two, split the national Protestant denominations in two first; and, though the denominational splits didn’t cause the war, they “aggravated and accelerated the causes”. [ii] While the war helped to turn the nation toward war, the war in turn changed the angle from which those involved viewed their faith, and it set in motion theological questions and debates that are being argued to this day.
“Religion shaped the responses of many Americans to both slavery and the war.” [iii] It is not surprising then that the city that birthed the Revolution would not too long after bring forth a revolution of another kind-abolition. “…Against the backdrop of church-led efforts to eradicate dueling, curb alcohol abuse, improve prisons and encourage literacy, religious leaders argued against slaveholding, particularly by Christians.” [iv] On July 4, 1829, the first anti-slavery speech issued by William Lloyd Garrison was given from the pulpit of Park Street Church in Boston, and the call for change began. [v] The North wanted change and their religion demanded it.
The “City on a Hill” doctrine, which crossed the ocean with the Puritans, left an indelible mark on New England religion [vi]. The City on a Hill doctrine was a mission that the Puritans brought with them to become a moral society and an example for the entire world. The society built by the Puritans was a Christian society, and though the nation would not eventually be set up as a theocracy, the doctrine of creating a morally pure nation never left the minds of the people.
Slavery for them was a moral issue. “If God’s grace is available to all, and all are qualified to receive it, Northern ministers asked, how could human bondage be justified?” [vii] Many believed that it was hypocrisy to claim to be Christians while allowing slavery within their borders, and hypocrisy had no place in their City on a Hill. Frederick Douglass spoke for this sentiment when he said,
…Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference-so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, woman-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this Land. [viii]
The foundations of the society of the South were not laid by the Puritans, so they were largely apathetic to this mission of their ambitious sister states. As such, and in contrast with Douglass’s opinion, they viewed slavery as an opportunity to bring converts to Christianity. They even argued, “Without slavery…’heathen’ souls would have been lost to a literal hell in which most 19th century Americans deeply believed”. [ix] To them, slavery was a benevolent institution that was forced on them by the North and undertaken at great cost. To the sufferings and destruction inflicted on many slaves by abusive masters, they responded that slavery was the natural consequence of their race’s sin. “The Old Testament was filled with examples of human slavery, and nowhere was it condemned in the New Testament…” [x] Their dark skin was the mark of Cain and the curse of ham, and their subjugation was natural.
In light of these differences, it was inevitable that the two approaches to morality would clash. Each of the national Protestant denominations split at least once North and South before the Civil War “beginning with the Presbyterians in 1837…followed by the Methodists in 1843, and the Baptists in 1845...” [xi] These splits heightened awareness of the differences between the two societies, and it could be said that the nation split because the churches had split already. [xii]
Only the Episcopal Church would split after the war. The church as a whole was filled with a “dread of schism [and a] fear that division in the political realm would be multiplied by division in the church.” [xiii] The Episcopal Church was the last denomination to split, and the only reason the denomination split in the first place was because the nation split. The South believed that the church should be a national church, and when the South became a new nation, it was very natural to them that there should be a church to match, so in 1862 the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Confederate States of America held its first General Convention. [xiv]
Though it was debated heatedly during the 1862 convention, the Episcopal Church (USA) ultimately decided to approach the split much the same way that Abraham Lincoln did in the beginning of the war. They believed that the nation would eventually rejoin, and the church treated the seceded dioceses at the 1862 General Convention as though they were absent instead of gone completely from the convention. [xv] In the process they made it easy for the dioceses to rejoin when the nation came together again.
Unlike Lincoln’s political attempt, this approach proved effective. The south rejoined the church soon after the war, and the seceding churches were welcomed as if they had never left. [xvi] The general attitude was that the South should be free to try the experiment for a while and be allowed to see that the union was the best place for them. Rev. Dr. C.S. Henry put it eloquently, “Let them eat the fruit of their own doings: let them be filled with their own devices… But perhaps it is the best way to open their foolish eyes. They will find the Union was the only buttress for their slavery.” [xvii]
If the Episcopal Church was able to handle to handle the war so well, why did it take some of the other denominations until as late as the 20th Century to reunite while some never reunited at all? Part of it was in regards to a weakness on the part of the Episcopal Church. The church didn’t know how to deal with outside social issues, so it chose not to deal with them at all. [xviii]
Even if they had known how to deal with social movements, the church was busy with quibbling of its own over Anglo-Catholicism, a new movement in the Episcopal Church which sought to revive some of the meaningful traditions of Roman Catholicism that were abandoned when Henry VIII abandoned Rome. [xix] This new movement proposed innovations in the liturgy and reinstated such things as colorful clothing, incense, and candles.
Not surprising, this controversy started in Boston and centered on Church of the Advent in the same neighborhood as Park Street Church. Unlike the controversy hosted by Park Street, however, Advent’s controversy was something that the North and South could agree on. Anti-Catholic church leaders on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line agreed that the candles had to go, so instead of fighting each other along sectional lines, the Episcopal Church was fighting each other along liturgical lines. Wrestling over these things of such great importance took up too much time for the church to officially worry about the rumblings the nation about to break out into civil war. The inability to deal with social issues and the distraction caused by upstart Anglo-Catholics combined with many other minor factors meant that the Episcopal Church was able to survive the war without many scars. [xx]
The Union was not so lucky, however. The United States followed the path of the other more socially active denominations and split divisively. As such, the two sides clearly felt the consequences of their division. The war brought more death and suffering than the nation had ever known, and it was forced to wrestle with how this new situation could be aligned with what they felt of God.
In the face of overwhelming casualties, the most obvious way that the Civil War changed American Christianity was how Americans viewed death. “The battlefield offers the extreme challenge to the belief that man can control his fate… Soldiers quickly become fatalists.” [xxi] When a human being faces the possibility of death on a regular basis, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that one will never die. The proximity of Civil War soldiers to death manifest itself in the numerous revivals and approximately 150,000 conversions that took place in both armies. [xxii]
It is true that Christianity was the religion that was closest to most soldiers, but the conversions could be explained in part by the fact that “ministers on both sides suggested that death on the battlefield would mean immediate admission to heaven”. [xxiii] With 1.1 million casualties, the afterlife was important to both the men who faced death and those who lost loved ones. “Some historians suggest that the war reshaped popular conceptions of an afterlife, as people and the church struggled to cope with unimaginable losses… Popular notions of heaven changed from a vague and distant place where the dead were with God to a more concrete, detailed place that looked like home.” [xxiv]
God’s control over the small circumstances of individuals’ lives was a common believe among Christians during the Civil War. [xxv] This idea brought comfort to individual soldiers who needed to feel as though they had divine protection, but it brought it also contributed to the war effort on both sides. Both sides worshipped the same God, through the same denominations, and both believed that God was on their side. [xxvi] If God directed individual affairs, how much more does He direct the moment of armies? Naturally, the idea of God’s divine intervention was a popular belief on both sides. They believed that “military victory depended on God’s will and was given to those whom God favored.” [xxvii]
Abraham Lincoln certainly held this belief. “As the war continued, Lincoln talked increasingly about God’s purpose in human history…When someone once assured him that God was on the Union’s side, Lincoln responded that his hopes ran in the other direction, that he preferred that the Union might be on God’s side.” [xxviii] He believed that slavery was a sin bad enough for God to intervene, and he increasingly believed that it was God’s will that the Civil War come to end slavery. [xxix] It seemed the more Lincoln believed this, the better things got for the North.
On August 21, 1863, just under a month and three weeks after Gettysburg, Jefferson Davis called for a day of prayer and fasting over the South’s sins, believing that the sins of the South were affecting the progress of the war. [xxx] Stephen Elliot, Bishop of Georgia gave special instructions to those in his diocese to follow a service similar to that used on Ash Wednesday, the fast day that begins Lent, accompanied by a prayer pleading with God to restore success to the Confederate armies. On this feast day, Elliot preached a sermon of note, which spelled out eloquently the concerns and questions vexing Confederates at the time.
The first question that Elliot addresses is, “If God is on our side, why were we defeated at Gettysburg?” Put another way, “Why does God allow people to experience pain?” He begins answering this by saying, “It is a visitation from God, to teach us our own weakness; it is the hiding of his countenance from our rulers, from our armies and from our people to make us understand that present victory and final success depend altogether upon his presence and favour.” [xxxi] Here Elliot reiterated the popular belief that pain is a tool to spur a Christian on to both righteousness and humility. It was this sentiment that inspired Davis to call for the day of fasting in the first place. He seems to be saying that God isn’t content with His will being done, but He requires that it be perfectly clear that it was His will that was done, and He was the one doing it.
He then goes on to address the threat that the Confederates might actually lose. He says that this could mean that they were deceived in thinking that God was on their side, or it could mean that God is unreliable. [xxxii] He doesn’t even address the second option, but the first option is unthinkable to him because he can’t imagine that God could possibly be on the side of those who want to keep them enslaved. [xxxiii] He then goes on to enumerate the wrongs that the Union has perpetrated against them, and he concludes his answer to this question by saying that if they lose, it is because there are those who have been cruel to their slaves. [xxxiv] Fully assured that their fasting will appease God, he urges those in attendance to join God’s cause and throw everything they have into the war effort because if the Confederates don’t align themselves with God, they will be subject to occupation. Even if it isn’t clear why to our 21st Century eyes, the South did lose, and for a time they were subject to occupation. Elliot was wrong, and things did change for the South.
One of his complaints against the North was that “Instead of believing in the curse of God upon sin… they determined that human effort could remove them all… They did not work that the evils of social life might fade out quietly under the influence of Christianity, but they defied God because there were any social evils at all.” [xxxv] He is referring here to the City on a Hill doctrine that wanted to clean up society to make it presentable. They did win the war, and this gave them the opportunity to instate reforms that would bring the whole nation in line with their reforms, but things ended up being the opposite of what either of them had hoped. “The emergence of Jim Crow, scientific thinking, and agnosticism, during the post-war years not only raised questions about the very principles upon which northern victory ultimately rested, but also prompted issues about the immutable law of God’s governance of human history.” [xxxvi] Was Elliot right? The North’s principles were honorable by today’s standards, so why was the state of the country after the war the opposite of what they wanted?
It is not our place to judge why the Civil War didn’t end the way anyone wanted at the time. It could be that neither side was entirely in the wrong, or maybe God doesn’t control world events as minutely as those in 19th Century America believed. Abraham Lincoln put it this way in his Second Inaugural Address, “The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” [xxxvii] Despite the question of God’s role in history, it is certain that Christianity had a profound effect on how Americans responded to the Civil War, and in turn the Civil War had a profound affect on how Americans look at religion.
Perhaps Elliot was right after all. Maybe the Civil War was a call for America to practice introspection and repentance. Maybe the City on a Hill doctrine of the North was a noble one in theory but not brought about the right way in practice. Perhaps the biggest tragedy of all is that in winning the war the North lost the very thing that they were fighting for.
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. [xxxviii]
[i] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 1 [15 Nov 2004]
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Paul Revere Memorial Association. (2003) < http://www.paulreverehouse.org/freedom.shtml >. [6 Dec 2004].
[vi] James A. Morone. “The Struggle for American Culture,” PS, (September 1996), 2. [6 Dec 2004].
[vii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2.
[viii] Frederick Douglass. “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave.” In The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Volume B, ed. Nina Baym, 2093.
[ix] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid, 1-2.
[xiii] J.M. Stanton. “Episcopal Church History Part 2: Missionary Period through the Civil War” < http://www.bishop.jmstanton.com/Anglican/notes_Episcopal_History_2.htm >, 3. [15 Nov 2004].
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] C.S. Henry. “A Clerical Opinion,” The New York Times, (February 1861), 3.
[xviii] J.M. Stanton. “Episcopal Church History Part 2: Missionary Period through the Civil War” < http://www.bishop.jmstanton.com/Anglican/notes_Episcopal_History_2.htm >, 9. [15 Nov 2004].
[xix] Ibid.
[xx] Ibid, 1-3 + 9.
[xxi] James M. McPherson. Cause and Comrades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 62.
<> [xxii] Christianity and the Civil War, Christian History Volume 11, (1992), 1.
[xxiii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2
[xxiv] Ibid.
[xxv] James M. McPherson. Cause and Comrades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 64.
[xxvi] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2
[xxvii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 2
[xxviii] Bob Wells, “‘Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory…’ Religion and the Civil War,” Divinity Online Edition, (Winter 2004): 3
[xxix] Abraham Lincoln. “With Malice Toward None,” In The Civil War and Reconstruction, ed. William E. Gienapp, 300.
[xxx] Stephen Elliot. Ezra’s Dilemna: A Sermon Preached in Christ Church Savannah, on Friday, August 21st, 1863, Being the Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, Appointed by the President of the Confederate States, (August 1863), 4.
[xxxi] Ibid., 7.
[xxxii] Ibid., 7-8.
[xxxiii] Ibid, 8.
[xxxiv] Ibid., 12.
[xxxv] Ibid., 14.
[xxxvi] Kent A. McConnell. “Constructing Religious Meaning for Children Out of the American Civil War.” Journal of Religion and Society. Volume: 3, (2001): 9.
[xxxvii] Abraham Lincoln. “With Malice Toward None,” In The Civil War and Reconstruction, ed. William E. Gienapp, 300.
[xxxviii] 1 Corinthians 3:12-14 New International Version.
Caution! Very rough draft.