|
RETURN TO
MAIN CHAT PAGE
American Civil War Home Chatroom
Transcript (Oct. 29, 2006) "For God and Country:
The Role of Religion in the Civil War": an online
chat with author Michael Aubrecht (continued)
TOPIC 3
10/29/2006 9:15 pm (et)
MAubrecht: Alright... on to the Yankees.
OLIVER HOWARD: BATTLEFIELD BELIEVER:
10/29/2006 9:15 pm (et) MAubrecht:
As a historian who "specializes" in
the religious aspects of Civil War history, I have
found that there are far fewer outward examples of
spiritual zeal when examining the Union side. I'm
sure most (if not all) of you have seen the Ron
Maxwell films "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals."
Obviously "G&G" is a blatant example, but I
would like to refer to a scene from "Gettysburg" in
which General Longstreet is sharing a cup of tea(?)
with their British observer and discussing the
differences in their ideology.
10/29/2006 9:16 pm (et) MAubrecht:
At one point, Longstreet makes a
candid comment saying, "I reckon we whipped you
British twice." He then responds to the observer's
laughter and reply by saying something along the
lines of "We Southerners like our generals to be
like our preachers… religious, and a little mad."
10/29/2006 9:16 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Although these lines are quoted
from a Hollywood script and obviously inserted as
conjecture, they are (IMO) very accurate. Without a
doubt, 19th-Century Southerners were more openly
religious than their northern counterparts. For
instance, I pass no less than five, 1800's-era
churches on the way to work, and I only live a few
miles away. This can also be seen in the way that
they acknowledged their generals. In essence, both
sides may have believed that their cause was the
more righteous one - but the Confederacy REALLY
believed that God was on their side and that the
were soldiers in the "Army of the Lord."
10/29/2006 9:17 pm (et) MAubrecht:
This resulted in a strong feeling
of loyalty from the Southern troops, and an
admiration (even at times, an adoration that
bordered on hero-worship) of the commanders that
was not as prevalent in the North. For example, the
Stonewall Brigade would have happily followed their
beloved Stonewall Jackson straight into the pits of
Hell if asked. I highly doubt that Burnsides, or
even McClellan, would have had the same "blind"
obedience in their ranks. (Although the Battle of
Fredericksburg may disprove my theory there?) In
the end, Southern generals were looked at as
"gods," while their Northern counterparts were mere
mortals in the eyes of their troops.
10/29/2006 9:18 pm (et) MAubrecht:
One Yankee officer did fit the bill
and could have just as easily been attending camp
service in a different colored uniform - if not for
politics, a strong opinion against slavery, and a
sense of duty toward preserving the Union. That man
was Oliver Howard, who personified the Christian
Soldier. Even in battle Howard was as much a moral
crusader as a warrior, insisting that his troops
attend prayer and temperance meetings.
10/29/2006 9:18 pm (et)
Basecat: ?
10/29/2006 9:19 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Yes Steve.. we were holding
questions until the end of each topic. Is that
cool?
10/29/2006 9:19 pm (et) Basecat:
Sorry...and fine with me.
10/29/2006 9:20 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Great - just a couple more blurbs.
10/29/2006 9:20 pm (et)
MAubrecht: In 1857, Howard was a full-time
soldier who was deployed to Florida for the
Seminole Wars. It was there that he experienced a
conversion to evangelical Christianity and
considered resigning from the army to become a
minister. His religious proclivities would later
earn him the nickname "the Christian general." On
the outbreak of the American Civil War, Howard, an
opponent of slavery, resigned his regular army
commission and became colonel of the Third Maine
Volunteers in the Union Army. Much like Jackson,
Howard made spiritual strengthening a daily part of
his troop's regiments.
10/29/2006 9:21 pm (et) MAubrecht:
As the war progressed, a movement
referred to as "The Great Revival" took place in
the South. Beginning in the fall of 1863, this
event was in full progress throughout the Army of
Northern Virginia. Before the revival was
interrupted by Grant's attack in May 1864,
approximately seven thousand soldiers-10 percent of
Lee's force-were reportedly converted. Dr. Gardiner
H. Shattuck, Jr., author of "A Shield and Hiding
Place: The Religious Life of the Civil War Armies,"
reports that "The best estimates of conversions in
the Union forces place the figure between 100,000
and 200,000 men-about 5-10 percent of all
individuals engaged in the conflict. In the smaller
Confederate armies, at least 100,000 were
converted. Since these numbers include only
"conversions" and do not represent the number of
soldiers actually swept up in the revivals-a yet
more substantial figure-the impact of revivals
during the Civil War surely was tremendous."
10/29/2006 9:22 pm (et)
MAubrecht: According to some accounts, in the
early stages of the war, revivals like the one
Howard led were not the rule but the exception.
Religion did not seem to have left home with the
soldiers. The magazine "Christianity Today"
recalled the trials and tribulations with living a
Godly life while on campaign. It stated:
"Day-to-day army life was so boring that men were
often tempted to "make some foolishness," as one
soldier typified it. Profanity, gambling,
drunkenness, sexual licentiousness, and petty
thievery confronted those who wanted to practice
their faith. Christians complained that no Sabbath
was observed; despite the efforts of a few generals
like George McClellan and Oliver O. Howard,
ordinary routines went on as if Sunday meant
nothing at all. General Robert McAllister, an
officer who was working closely with the United
States Christian Commission, complained that a
"tide of irreligion" had rolled over his army "like
a mighty wave."
10/29/2006 9:23 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Unfortunately, Howard's
motivational efforts did not always transpire on
the battlefield in the same manner that it did for
Jackson's brigades. At the Battle of Fair Oaks
(June1862) he was wounded twice in the right arm.
The second wound shattered his bone near the elbow.
It was amputated, and Howard spent two months
recovering from his wounds before coming back. He
was also given the Medal of Honor as a result of
his own gallantry.
10/29/2006 9:24 pm (et)
MAubrecht: According to an August 1864 issue
of "Harper's Weekly": "General HOWARD has lost his
right arm in his country's service. It used to be a
joke between him and KEARNEY, who had lost his left
arm, that, as a matter of economy, they might
purchase their gloves together." One of Howard's
most significant moments (in the field) came at
Gettysburg, where he assumed command of Reynolds
troops after he was killed.
10/29/2006 9:24 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Most people are aware of that.
After the war, he was appointed head of the
Freedman's Bureau, which was designed to protect
and assist the newly freed slaves. In this
position, Howard quickly earned the contempt of
white Southerners and many Northerners for his
unapologetic support of black suffrage and his
efforts to distribute land to African-Americans. He
was also fearlessly candid about expressing his
belief that the majority of white Southerners would
be happy to see slavery restored. He even
championed freedom and equality for former slaves
in his private life, by working to make his elite
Washington, D.C., church racially integrated and by
helping to found an all-black college in the
District of Columbia, which was soon named Howard
University in his honor.
10/29/2006 9:25 pm (et)
bluelady: enters the chatroom.
10/29/2006 9:25 pm (et)
MAubrecht: Howard was also active in Indian
engagements and subsequent relations in the West
and is remembered as a man of his word and of
strong moral convictions. As was quite common, many
of the surviving commanders of the Civil War became
"celebrities" in the public eye, and they often
signed autographs. Howard routinely signed his "The
Lord Is My Shepard." Much like Jackson was in the
South, Oliver "O" is to be credited for his
evangelistic efforts on behalf of the North, in
addition to his activism on behalf of all
minorities living in the U.S. at the time.
10/29/2006 9:25 pm (et) bluelady:
sorry was out of town all day just
getting back
10/29/2006 9:26 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Are there any questions or comments
on "the Christian general"? XXXXXXXXX No problem
bluelady. Welcome.
10/29/2006 9:26 pm (et) ks:
?
10/29/2006 9:26 pm (et)
Basecat: ?
10/29/2006 9:27 pm (et)
MAubrecht: ks... then Steve :)
10/29/2006 9:27 pm (et) NJRebel:
Why would you say that religion
among the Union troops was not as prevalent and
where there other examples such as Howard's in the
Union forces, but perhaps not as obvious?
10/29/2006 9:27 pm (et) NJRebel:
?
10/29/2006 9:27 pm (et)
ks: Just a comment. Delighted to see
you mention Shattuck's work btw. :) Have read (in
Gardiner H. Shattuck Jr.'s book on the Religious
Life of the CW armies) that, prior to the 1850s,
men who served in the army had been held in very
low esteem among English-speaking Protestants.
"They were considered so beneath contempt and such
licentious, immoral rabble that their souls were
hardly thought to merit saving." But by mid-century
churchmen for the first time recognized the value
of a "Christian" army as an effective fighting
force and actually saw the armies as "seedbeds for
religion, ready for missionaries to till."
Fascinating reading about the revivals that took
place in the field. And maybe you all knew that
(about the army not being regarded as worth
evangelizing prior to 1850s), but it was new info
to me when I read the book. :) TJ recommended it to
me MANY moons ago, back in WebAmerica days.
10/29/2006 9:28 pm (et)
MAubrecht: That is a great book. Steve? Then
NJ...
10/29/2006 9:29 pm (et) Basecat:
Mine is a comment. Little Macs
soldiers were very devoted to him while he was in
command, and many remained that way even after he
was gone. What changed their perspectives on him
was the platform he was part of when he ran for
President in 1864. I agree that many commanders of
the AoP did not have the full confidence of the
soldiers, but in Little Macs case they did. :)
10/29/2006 9:29 pm (et)
MAubrecht: basecat?
10/29/2006 9:30 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Please don't misunderstand me. It
was not my intent to say that the Unionists were
not religious. I am speaking in terms of public
persona and obvious religious fanaticism and zeal.
10/29/2006 9:31 pm (et) NJRebel:
Michael, sorry for not putting the
question mark in previously on my question....
Therefore, I am re-presenting it here:
10/29/2006 9:31 pm (et) NJRebel:
Why would you say that religion
among the Union troops was not as prevalent and
where there other examples such as Howard's in the
Union forces, but perhaps not as obvious?
10/29/2006 9:31 pm (et) Basecat:
Not taken that way Michael, just
feel using Little Mac as an example in terms of
devotion is not the best choice. :)
10/29/2006 9:32 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Clearly the South's generals were
portrayed as Christian heroes. Howard (to me) is
the closest thing to a "Jackson" if that makes
sense. I have yet to find another commander (at
that level) who carried himself and his men like
"Old Testament" warriors.
10/29/2006 9:32 pm (et)
bluelady: I hope you all don't forget about
EHRhodes and how important he thought religion was
not only to his regiment but to the Union cause.
10/29/2006 9:33 pm (et)
MAubrecht: He is a good example blue. Howard
is more "obvious" of a choice. I have been asked
repeatedly at book signings if I ever intend to
write a Christian book on a Yankee general. If I do
get around to such a project, Howard will certainly
be my choice.
10/29/2006 9:34 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Does that answer you too NJ?
10/29/2006 9:34 pm (et)
Basecat: Makes a lot of sense, and it is a
fine comparison. Howard gets a bad rap, IMHO in
terms of his bravery.
10/29/2006 9:34 pm (et)
ks: Moderator's note... :) As we began
tonight I said we'd keep this formally informal.
It's easiest to address questions and comments if
you'll post a ? when you'd like to address a
comment or question to Michael. Helps keep us on
topic as well. Thanks...
10/29/2006 9:35 pm (et)
NJRebel: Michael, it does in a way...
However, any reason why the Union forces were
perceived as not being as religious as those in the
South?
10/29/2006 9:35 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Yes Steve. GREAT point too. Howard
gets little credit. And especially for what he did
after the war. I can think of no veteran who did
more for minorities than Howard. His efforts on
behalf of blacks and Indians are second to none
among U.S. commanders.
10/29/2006 9:36 pm (et)
MAubrecht: I think it's all a matter of
perspective NJ.
10/29/2006 9:36 pm (et)
NJRebel: I will agree with you on that....
10/29/2006 9:37 pm (et) MAubrecht:
The South (IMO) was holding on to
an ideology that was more traditional. The North
represented change: corporations, commerce - not
necessarily bad things - but different things, and
change is often perceived as a threat.
10/29/2006 9:37 pm (et)
MAubrecht: Also, remember that I'm in Central
Virginia, and my perspective is very southern
influenced.
10/29/2006 9:38 pm (et)
MAubrecht: The way that history is
interpreted here in Fredericksburg, is probably
different from what someone in Boston would
interpret.
10/29/2006 9:38 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Although neither is any less
spiritual than the other.
10/29/2006 9:38 pm (et) Basecat:
?
10/29/2006 9:38 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Yes base..
10/29/2006 9:39 pm (et)
Basecat: In terms of the North Michael, you
hit it right on the head. The two Cs...Corporations
and Commerce...that was more of a focus up North at
that time, IMHO.
10/29/2006 9:40 pm (et)
NJRebel: ?
10/29/2006 9:40 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Yes NJ
10/29/2006 9:41 pm (et)
NJRebel: Corporations and commerce...how
much of a threat in terms of religious viewpoint
were those two areas seen in the South?
10/29/2006 9:42 pm (et)
MAubrecht: I think (and just my own opinion)
that those institutions were viewed as potential
pathways to greed. They represented a different
value system.
10/29/2006 9:42 pm (et) MAubrecht:
Money being a "root" of evil and
ungodly lifestyles.
10/29/2006 9:43 pm (et) MAubrecht:
I think the South (strictly in
religious terms) looked at the movement toward a
more industrial and secular society as a threat. In
some ways - it is similar to the way that the
Middle East looks at our Western culture today.
10/29/2006 9:43 pm (et)
NJRebel: Good point, Michael. Thanks.
10/29/2006 9:44 pm (et)
MAubrecht: More great stuff. Thanks again...
moving on.
GO TO
TOPIC 4
|