Civil War or War between States - please advise.

[DaveW]

History is written by those who win the battles.

That is why the true history of Christianity is so hard to find. 

The truth of real christians and what they believed in history is often gained from the accusations of their opponents, and like it or not, those opponents won many of the battles, and so wrote much of the history. And of course their accusations are often put in detogatory terms.

A simple one is anabaptist" which means "rebaptiser", meant as an accusation, and not accurate for the simple reason that catholic baptism is not baptism at all, so they weren't REbaptising, and were thus wrongly named by their enemy. But it does still tell us something.

(They will not win the war  though.)

 

My son was talking about the American "civil war" the other day and I pointed out to him that slavery was only one part of the reasons for it. I know very little about it, but I have figured out that it is certainly not a simple matter of for or against slavery.

[weary warrior]

48 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

 

I don't wonder. I will replace wonder with believe in the previous post of mine.

It will not matter in heaven what you or I have come to understand about the Civil War?

No, it will not matter in heaven. Where such things matter is here on earth when ministering to, and dealing with, people. Paul said "I am become all things to all men ... that I might by all means save some." There is an old saying that goes "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care". Paul understood that you can not reach people effectively outside of their heart culture. And if you are flippant about their history, or their perceived history, you are flippant about them personally. The soul and personal identity of a person is inseperable from their culture, and their culture is defined by their history. That's why I got a little scratchy on this post the other night. Things that matter only here on earth often, by natural extension, do have eternal consequences in Heaven

Edited March 4, 2017 by weary warrior

[Bob from England]

As stated at the outset, I've spent a lot of time looking into this subject ,and what has been written on this thread has been a great help to me in enhancing my knowledge of the conflict.

As I understand it, Lincoln did not go to war over slavery but over the Union.  At least 2 states (Kentucky and Maryland) remained loyal to the Union but retained slavery until it was formally abolished.  Therefore, contrary to popular opinion, the war did not start over slavery.

I realise, that being a Brit, my knowledge of this conflict is not going to be as precise as that of Americans, but I hope I have given a fair assessment.

Many thanks to all - you have been a big help to me. 

[...]

Every once in a while, I miss the old music I used to play and write.  I was in the middle of writing an entire album set during the civil war.  It told the story of a man whose little boy was accidentally killed by a stray bullet from one of Quanrtill's men.  He runs off to join the Union Army as an excuse to hunt down and kill Quantrill and his raiders.  He and his wife write back and forth to each other the whole time and he discovers that his wife is expecting another child by him, but she is very ill.  He fought many battles and reached the ocean.  He stayed in long enough to have fought at the battle of Palmito Ranch.  He had killed several of Quantrill's men, but had still not faced Quantrill himself.  He finally gives up and starts the long journey home, to be with his wife and now four year old son, when he finally meets up with Quantrill and kills him, but is then killed himself by one of Quantrill's last loyal raiders.

The whole story was told in the letters that the husband and wife wrote to each other; every other song being sung from the viewpoint of the other.  Lots of mountain harmony, acoustic guitar, mandolin, fiddle and Dorbro; even military drums in one of them. I was in the middle of writing it when I damaged my ears and God awakened me from the enchantment of that worldly music with which I was so obsessed.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Brother Stafford

[weary warrior]

4 hours ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

As stated at the outset, I've spent a lot of time looking into this subject ,and what has been written on this thread has been a great help to me in enhancing my knowledge of the conflict.

As I understand it, Lincoln did not go to war over slavery but over the Union.  At least 2 states (Kentucky and Maryland) remained loyal to the Union but retained slavery until it was formally abolished.  Therefore, contrary to popular opinion, the war did not start over slavery.

I realise, that being a Brit, my knowledge of this conflict is not going to be as precise as that of Americans, but I hope I have given a fair assessment.

Many thanks to all - you have been a big help to me. 

That's a pretty fair synopsis. Kentucky was a border state, and was split internally in its loyalties, but was officially won militarily by the Union after a fairly short time into the war.

[1Timothy115]

As much as I would have liked to avoid this difference of opinion its time to provide details some may not be aware of. I hope to show the ROOT cause of the Civil War was slavery.

A History of American Christianity, Leonard Woolsey Bacon, 1897

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

CHAPTER X. THE AMERICAN CHURCH ON THE EVE OF THE GREAT AWAKENING--A GENERAL VIEW.

“Crossing the boundary line from Pennsylvania into Maryland…we come to the four Southern colonies, Maryland, Virginia, and the two Carolinas. Georgia in 1730 has not yet begun to be.” P.104

 

“They are not peculiar in being slave colonies; there is no colony North or South in which slaves are not held under sanction of law. Georgia, in its early years, is to have the solitary honor of being an antislavery and prohibitionist colony. But the four earlier Southern colonies are unlike their Northern neighbors in this, that the institution of slavery dominates their whole social life.” P.104

 

“Recognizing that "lawful captives taken in just wars" may be held in bondage, it declared among its earliest public acts, in 1641, that, with this exception, no involuntary bond-slavery, villeinage, or captivity should ever be in the colony; and in 1646 it took measures for returning to Africa negroes who had been kidnapped by a slaver. It is not strange that reflection on the golden rule should soon raise doubts whether the precedents of the Book of Joshua had equal authority with the law of Christ.” P.107-108

“It was not from the willful inhumanity of the Southern colonies, but from their terrors, that those slave codes came forth which for nearly two centuries were the shame of America and the scandal of Christendom.” P.108

CHAPTER XII. CLOSE OF THE COLONIAL ERA--THE GERMAN CHURCHES--THE BEGINNINGS OF THE METHODIST CHURCH.

“In 1774 the first society in the world for the abolition of slavery was organized among the Friends in Pennsylvania, to be followed by others, making a continuous series of abolition societies from New England to Maryland and Virginia. But the great antislavery society of the period in question was the

Methodist Society. Laboring through the War of Independence mainly in the Southern States, it publicly declared, in the conference of 1780, "that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of conscience and pure religion, and doing that which we would not that others should do to us and ours." The discipline of the body of itinerants was conducted rigorously in accordance with this declaration.” P.140

What about the suspension of “Habeas Corpus” by Lincoln.

"The authority of proclaiming martial law is a war power of the President, and includes that of arresting traitors and restraining presses giving aid and comfort to rebels in arms, or to a foreign enemy. In all these cases the President acts by virtue of a constitutional jurisdiction, and his acts and orders may displace to this extent the civil law, habeas corpus included. By martial power he may order a levy of military contributions and the seizure of rebels or enemy's property, if the President judges the exigencies of a foreign or civil war to require such measures."

Whether rebel to the U.S. Constitution or as some prescribe a foreign enemy 'separate country' Lincoln had that power to restrain habeas corpus.

My more to come indicator flag is set.

[1Timothy115]

Why had slavery become so abhorrent to the masses across both the North and in many cases the South too. Because of incidents similar to the following. Please be aware that the contents of this quotation is stark and graphic for the period, and for some just as much so today..

The following is a quotation from American Scenes, and Christian Slavery, A Recent Tour of Four Thousand Miles in the United States, Ebenezer Davies, 1849

"Many of our readers have probably seen a paragraph stating that a young slave girl was recently hanged at New Orleans for the crime of striking and abusing her mistress. The religious press of the north has not, so far as we are aware, made any comments upon this execution. It is too busy pulling the mote out of the eye of the heathen, to notice the beam in our nominal Christianity at home. Yet this case, viewed in all its aspects, is an atrocity which has (God be thanked) no parallel in heathen lands. It is a hideous offshoot of American Republicanism and American Christianity! It seems that Pauline--a young and beautiful girl--attracted the admiration of her master, and being (to use the words of the law) his "chattel personal to all intents and purposes whatsoever," became the victim of his lust. So wretched is the condition of the slave woman, that even the brutal and licentious regard of her master is looked upon as the highest exaltation of which her lot is susceptible. The slave girl in this instance evidently so regarded it; and as a natural consequence, in her new condition, triumphed over and insulted her mistress,--in other words, repaid in some degree the scorn and abuse with which her mistress had made her painfully familiar. The laws of the Christian State of Mississippi inflict the punishment of death upon the slave who lifts his or her hand against a white person. Pauline was accused of beating her mistress,--tried, found guilty, and condemned to die! But it was discovered on the trial that she was in a condition to become a mother, and her execution was delayed until the birth of the child. She was conveyed to the prison cell. There, for many weary months, uncheered by the voice of kindness, alone, hopeless, desolate, she waited for the advent of the new and quickening life within her, which was to be the signal of her own miserable death. And the bells there called to mass and prayer-meeting, and Methodists sang, and Baptists immersed, and Presbyterians sprinkled, and young mothers smiled through tears upon their new-born children,--and maidens and matrons of that great city sat in their cool verandahs, and talked of love, and household joys, and domestic happiness; while, all that dreary time, the poor slave girl lay on the scanty straw of her dungeon, waiting--with what agony the great and pitying God of the white and black only knows--for the birth of the child of her adulterous master. Horrible! Was ever what George Sand justly terms 'the great martyrdom of maternity'—that fearful trial which love alone converts into joy unspeakable—endured under such conditions? What was her substitute for the kind voices and gentle soothings of affection? The harsh grating of her prison lock,--the mockings and taunts of unfeeling and brutal keepers! What, with the poor Pauline, took the place of the hopes and joyful anticipations which support and solace the white mother, and make her couch of torture happy with sweet dreams? The prospect of seeing the child of her sorrow, of feeling its lips upon her bosom, of hearing its feeble cry--alone, unvisited of its unnatural father; and then in a few days--just when the mother's affections are strongest, and the first smile of her infant compensates for the pangs of the past--the scaffold and the hangman! Think of the last terrible scene,--the tearing of the infant from her arms, the death-march to the gallows, the rope around her delicate neck, and her long and dreadful struggles, (for, attenuated and worn by physical suffering and mental sorrow, her slight frame had not sufficient weight left to produce the dislocation of her neck on the falling of the drop,) swinging there alive for nearly half an hour--a spectacle for fiends in the shape of humanity! Mothers of New England! such are the fruits of slavery. Oh! in the name of the blessed God, teach your children to hate it, and to pity its victims. Petty politicians and empty-headed Congress debators are vastly concerned, lest the 'honour of the country' should be compromised in the matter of the Oregon Boundary. Fools! One such horrible atrocity as this murder of poor Pauline 'compromises' us too deeply to warrant any further display of their patriotism. It would compromise Paradise itself! An intelligent and philanthropic European gentleman, who was in New Orleans at the time of the execution, in a letter to a friend in this vicinity, after detailing the circumstances of the revolting affair, exclaims, 'God of goodness! God of justice! There must be a future state to redress the wrongs of this. I am almost tempted to say--there must be a future state, or no God!'"

Ebenezer Davies, LATE MINISTER OF MISSION CHAPEL, NEW AMSTERDAM, BERBICE

More to come flag set.

Edited March 5, 2017 by 1Timothy115

[...]

Breaking that gigantic block of text into paragraphs would make reading it and responding much easier for us.

[1Timothy115]

9 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Breaking that gigantic block of text into paragraphs would make reading it and responding much easier for us.

Its posted as it was given in its original, one large block of text. Considering it now, I imagine it was so difficult to write the author would not have been able to finish if he didn't scrawl it all at once. Try your best and especially let the last 5 sentences.

[D-28 Player]

On 2/27/2017 at 5:55 AM, The real Bob Hutton said:

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask a question about History but I have an enquiry.

I like to spend time reading History, not only British, but also European and N. American, and over the last few years have read quite a lot about the US Civil War. 

However, I note that some commentators refer to it as "The war between the States" and appear to get irritated by it being called the Civil War; can anyone help me with this?

If you are travelling through the US are there any areas where you would get in trouble for calling the conflict the Civil War?

You might get kidded about it, but you won't really get in trouble. Down here, you'll get in a lot more trouble if you have the wrong football team's sticker on your car.

"Civil War" is fine, although it really wasn't a civil war. "Civil war" refers to two or more factions fighting for control of a single government and that wasn't really the case here. The confederacy wasn't fighting to take over the United States government, but merely for the right to secede.

We Southerners take the Civil War pretty seriously, but mostly because of the effects of Reconstruction more than the war itself.  If you've ever heard The Band's song "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down", it describes the effects of Reconstruction on a farmer living in the South.

My maternal grandmother is a descendant of the Lee family so, in addition to growing up in Alabama and having it drilled into me, the War of Yankee Aggression has always been a great interest to me.

So, yeah, you will hear Southerners call it "The War of Yankee Aggression" or even, as Minnie Pearl called it "The Recent Unpleasantness",  but "Civil War" is fine. 

 

 

 

[D-28 Player]

On 2/27/2017 at 1:12 PM, The real Bob Hutton said:

Many thanks for your comments they were very helpful.

I do have 2 more  questions - is there, in the South, a day in April called "Confederate Memorial Day"?, (I seem to remember watching film about a young girl who was murdered on a special confederate day in 1913, I think it was called "The ballad of Mary Phagan") and on that day do government buildings fly the confederate flag as a concession to Southerners? 

I do hope you don't mind a Brit asking questions about your history, but I have a deep fascination for the Civil War subject.

Yes, there is a Confederate Memorial Day but it differs from state to state Most states in the South also celebrate Robert E Lee's birthday. 

Depending on the state, some states do fly the Confederate flag and it's traditional to place a small Confederate flag on the graves of Confederate soldiers. Also, many states have the Confederate flag incorporated into their state flag. 

Alabama, where I'm from, has "a crimson cross of St. Andrew on a field of white". But many other states have the Confederate flag incorporated into their state flag. 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by D-28 Player

[Invicta]

 St Andrew's Cross is white on a blue background, the national flag of Scotland.  Red cross on white is St George's cross, the national flag of England

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Invicta

[Bob from England]

Reply to D-28 Player:

Many thanks for your replies, they were very helpful.

In one of my posts, quoted above I mentioned a film called "The ballad of Mary Phagan".  I believe that was a film based on a true story of a young gilr murdered in 1913.  I understand that was in Alabama, your home state.  What can you tell me about this?

[D-28 Player]

3 hours ago, The real Bob Hutton said:

Reply to D-28 Player:

Many thanks for your replies, they were very helpful.

In one of my posts, quoted above I mentioned a film called "The ballad of Mary Phagan".  I believe that was a film based on a true story of a young gilr murdered in 1913.  I understand that was in Alabama, your home state.  What can you tell me about this?

Honestly not much. I'm a fan of "old time" and string band music so I'm familiar with the folk song but I honestly didn't know it was based on a real event until you said so. 

I googled it and in 1913 a Jewish factory supervisor was charged and convicted of murdering a little girl It was a controversial case because apparently some witnesses were not allowed to testify and some say that anti-semitism played a role in his conviction He was sentenced to death for the murder

The governor of Georgia commuted his sentence to life in prison and this so enraged the community that some local men broke him out of prison and lynched him 

That's about all I know about it 

There were two movies made about it: One called "The Don't Know" in 1937 and the 1988 mini-series you're probably referring to 

There was also a Broadway musical made about it called "Parade" which looks pretty interesting 

(Please excuse the lack of punctuation as several keys on y keyboard have stopped working for some reason)

 

 

 

 

 

[Ukulelemike]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 4:29 AM, 1Timothy115 said:

Its posted as it was given in its original, one large block of text. Considering it now, I imagine it was so difficult to write the author would not have been able to finish if he didn't scrawl it all at once. Try your best and especially let the last 5 sentences.

I quoted this instead of the longer text, but it references that.

This is indeed a pitiful scene. Slavery was in all reality a major aspect of the civil war. Already the British were abolishing it among their ranks, and many Americans were beginning to be enlightened to the idea that skin difference didn't make one less a human. Too often, the condition of the slaves were harsher than those of a beast of burden, an odd thought seeing as how they considered them property for which they paid-who treats something of financial value, so poorly? And their intrinsic humanity was beginning to be seen. Even Lincoln.

Anyways, that was a very good piece you posted-having read over Foxe's Book of Martyrs, I recognize the power of the pen when one can write with honesty and compassion, and I don't doubt that book opened some eyes.  I think the whole issue of slavery, and the war itself, brought to light some real problems with American Christianity-even then it was about convenience, much like it is today, and then, believer was willing to lift arms against believer for such things. What a mess. Hasn't gotten a whole lot better, either. The Christians' support of slavery then, because it was the law, is very much akin to those churches who support homosexual marriage because it's the law. Or abortion. Hey, the government says it's okay, so we can, too!