www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Church and the South in the Civil War

Continuing from the thread "Just War Theory."

Here's an interesting article concerning the Vatican's relationship with the Confederate States of America: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/oldsouth.htm

This thread is meant to be more of a discussional nature than polemical. I am certainly open to other opinions, and in return I hope others will be open to mine.

ChristTeen287

LOL,

So the Pope that declared “Papal Infallibility” sympathized with a no-good racist pro-slavery tyrant who was wearing a woman's dress when he was arrested by the Union. My skepticism of papal infallibility just grew by another 1,000%.

It comes as no surprise, other Popes were reminding enslaved Africans of the Pauline “slaves be good to your masters” (which in this context is like saying “slaves be good to your kidnappers”).

I sure hope the Rastas do not get a hold of this strand of historical information, I am sure not in the mood to get into another debate with them defending the idea that our ecumenical dialogue with the Vatican is a good idea.

Fascinating article; thank you for posting the link.

I am always interested in discussions of the socioeconomic effects of "catholic culture" vs. "protestant culture." If anyone knows of helpful material discussing the relative poverty of the catholic world vs. the relative affluence of the protestant societies, please note them here.

Thank you again!

Dear ChristTeen287,

Do you know that the RC parish "The Shrine of the Immaculate Conception" near the capitol played a role in the Civil War and Sherman's March to the Sea?

That parish's pastor is credited with preventing the Churches of Atlanta from being burned by Sherman's men who were mostly RC.

Tony

Aklie,

Let it be known that I in no way condone slavery. I see it as totally inhumane and unChristian. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate leaders said as much, and many of the Union leaders did not.

An interesting little primer on the incredible anti-South prejudice that still survives in America today is called "Facts The Historians Leave Out." I'm sure it can be ordered from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, but then again, p'raps not. :p

I'm quite offended by your epithets of President Davis. All I can say is that I, and millions more, do not share your views.

As people on this forum often tell me, "it's not all black and white." (no pun intended)

Tony,

No, I was unaware of that connection; thanks for pointing it out. Sentiments against Sherman are still very much alive in Georgia. That happens after thousands of innocent victims and their homes are viciously looted and destroyed.

Truly, as Sherman said after all this, War Is Hell.

ChristTeen287

Not to say that the South was wonderful and every aspect and that the North didn't have many great aspects. But I just believe the true history is covered over when we try and paint things with such a big ole brush.

Well, Pius IX has a LOT to answer for!!!!!!!!!

ChristTeen287,

Check out the connection between the IC Shrine and the burning of Atlanta, it is interesting.

Just FYI, I am an Atlanta native, finished HS and started college there. Spent the first 22.5 years of my life there. I know a little of the sentiments in GA.

Tony

Tony,

So that explains why you know so much about St. John's and St. Joseph's. You had me thinking you were some kind of cultured traveler (lol, I'm sure you are anyway).

Did you like Atlanta? I hope you don't take offense at this, but personally Atlanta is about the last place I'd want to live, but I know plenty of people who absolutely love it. Just depends on your private likes and dislikes.

I will certainly check out the relationship between the IC and the Burning of Atlanta.

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen287,

Home is home. I loved Atlanta when I lived there and I have not stopped loving it since I left it. My mom's side of the family is from the Atlanta area so I had family there. My dad's side is not local. Since you did not elaborate on why you dislike Atlanta I can't say much about it other than I suppose that if you don't like city life you would not like Atlanta.

Tony

Dear ChristTeen:

That groups to which you referred is not a schismatic Trad-Latin type group but is in full communion with the Catholic Church. Their monastic community is not officially registered, though.

In Christ,

anastasios

That's basically it. I'm a small-town boy (which doesn't easily accomodate my religious preferences, especially around here).

Anastasios,

Thank you, I could've sworn they were schismatic.

ChristTeen287

So what?

I could care less if "millions of Americans' have a mushy soft heart for "President' Davis.

Millions of Americans supported slavery and segregation. The daddies and grand daddies of many of these modern day confederate supporters used to line up in the street to counter-protest civil rights marches and stand around flipping off and waving confederate flags at, and at times physically assaulting Martin Luther King, Jr. (Martin Luther Coon in their language) and his fellow marchers.

I have never met ONE Black American from the South that referred to the Civil War that led to their ancestors liberation as “the War of Northern Aggression,” I have never met one Black American anywhere that had some sympathy with Davis. When you say “millions' at least have the honesty to not try and portray it as some kind of color blind hodgepodge of brotherly love. The “millions of Americans” that support the confederacy (aside from those that have Libertarian convictions) are the Trent Lott's, the Strom Thurmond's and the millions of voters that accounted for ex-nazi demagogue David Duke almost becoming the Governor of Louisiana.

Oh save the drama and give me a break, if the end result of a confederate victory was the continued enslavement of African Americans (which is what would have happened) then it is “Black and White.” In the eyes of one who had to keep toiling on the cotton patch, the "other issues' that the War was about become irrelevant.

Oh let me guess…it has a “did you know” list that attempts to exonerate the confederates? “Did you know that many confederate leaders were anti-slavery? Isn't it strange that the liberals never tell you that?” “Did you know that only 1/12 of southerners owned slaves?” Sort of like the irrelevant curious that one receives from those dossiers of propaganda by Islamic fundamentalists trying to claim that America is more sexist than predominantly Islamic societies? “Did you know that Iran has more women elected in their parliament than women in the U.S. legislature?” And What?

As I said plenty of times I am not anti-south. I was just there in January to attend Timket our Holiday celebrating the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist. I loved my stay. I praise the South for their food (except the opossum, armadillo, and river rat dishes), their culture, their hospitality, and their traditional family values and for their Church traditions (even if half of them probably believe that the Vatican is the "whore of Babylon.') I have zero problem with "the south.'

Supporting a confederacy of slave owners (regardless if some of them like Lee sold their slaves and became anti-slavery ex-slave owners that were fighting for a pro-slave confederacy for "different reasons') is a different matter.

Unless the basis of your sympathy with the confederates is based on a principled* opposition to strong states and centralized power play (the libertarian perspective) then any other sympathy with the confederates is objectively and ipso facto pro-slavery.

*Principled means that you apply it everywhere with consistency. If you are opposed to the federal government militarily occupying the south and dictating who the political leaders would be then you must also be opposed to the federal government occupying Iraq and installing a U.S. military commander there to govern it. To oppose one and to support the other is hypocrisy.

I guess he does, but I will be very happy if the Catholic Church gains more ground in the South (even happier if Orthodoxy does )

We will just have to see. I am happy that none of our Bishops sent Jefferson Davis a thorn crown.

Aklie, please. This is a huge generalization and I sincerely doubt its accuracy. Confederate sympathizers weren't the only racist people in the United States. Ever heard of Cleveland or Detroit? Ever heard of pre-Civil War New York City? NYC was well-known for being incredibly racist, as was Detroit, as Cleveland, I daresay, still is.

The South is not the only region in America to be guilty of the sin of slavery. Before the War, the Northern states had slaves as well (obviously they abolished slavery well before the Southern states). The way factory workers (who were as young as 11) were treated in Northern factories was at least as bad if not worse than how most slaves were treated in the South. This is no way deemphasizes the absolutely terrible nature of slavery, just serves to show that pin-pointing the South in all this is way off base.

Then obviously you haven't gotten out much. I support the Confederacy, but I have a huge problem with slavery. The majority of Confederate supporters despise slavery as much as I. In your attempt to show how prejudiced these people are, you are in fact displaying your own prejudices.

You don't know that's what would have happened! Many Confederate leaders explicitly stated that after winning independence they would work to abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery because he felt sorry for the slaves, obviously it was a purely political move. This was proven, when, in the Emancipation Proclamation, certain parishes in Louisiana and counties in Virginia (which were already under Northern control) were told to continue slavery, "as if this proclamation had never been issued." After all, what did the U.S. need to abolish slavery for in the territories it had already reconquered?

Coulda fooled me.

By the way, I have never seen any of those dishes in my life. No one eats that except in the backwaters of Louisiana and maybe the Kentucky Appalachians.

So would you have supported the U.S. pre-Civil War? Because let me tell you, it was a union of slaveowners.

Thank you for finally asking my opinion. Like every single other Confederate sympathizer I know (and I know a lot) States' Rights is the reason for their support of the Confederacy. This is certainly my position; I don't believe D.C. has the right or the privilege to dictate so much to the States, when this is clearly not how the U.S. was organized by (the slave-owning) Founding Fathers.

This is not to say that the South is not partly to blame for slavery, but I believe no more than the North is.

Have I ever said I support U.S. occupation of Iraq? I most certainly do not. I think the U.S. is very much overstepping its bounds, and if I were Iraqi I'd be just as disgusted with the U.S.

I specifically said I didn't want this to be some king of petty debate but apparently this hasn't been recognized.

ChristTeen287

It seems to me that context is needed... and this is probably a short summery of what most Notherners do not know about the causes of the Civil War.

The American Revolution was fought to free States from the central governing of Britain. What was then created was actually a confederation of 13 individual States. Washington (the man or place) only had as much power as the individual States granted it - and that was very little.

In this sense, any central stading Army or govering body was - actually hired - by each State - to represent them all.

Later - Federalism began to rise. That is - the central Federal government began to feel it held all power and granted rights to the individual states.

Now � here is the way things were perceived by many�

The initial secession of the Confederated States - was - in the mind of the Confederacy - to preserve the sovereignty of individual States rights in the way it had been practices since the Revolutionary war. They feared a tyrannical central government. - and they had some cause to.

The fact of the North freeing the slaves - was not really done on humanitarian grounds - in fact - it was plain political efforts to weaken the Southern States by collapsing their economy - while the North continued the virtual slavery of other ethnics. That President Lincoln took the freedom of slaves seriously and in a humane was in many ways an 'accident' that Norther polititions did not expect - and I suspect that opened the gate to the mutual agreement between conspirators of the North and South that Lincoln must go.

There was great feeling in the North by good intentioned people to preserve the union of all states at all costs � which was followed (after the war) with the virtual pillage of the South by Northern carpet baggers.

I believe that Secretary of State George(?) Stanton - came darn close to becoming - the first dictator of the United States - I forgot how that was prevented.

Only in the North, which prevailed, did the Civil War come to be finally portrayed as a fight to free the slaves. A kind of writing of the History books - which elevated this ploy of some Northern politicians - into one of the great moments in American History.

This is NOT to say that there were not good men on all side who realized the humanitarian interest of ending slavery and keeping the union of all states - but to say that these two reasons - were the main reasons of the Civil War -is only the surface.

The main issue was the between Federalism (the power of each state is only that which is granted by a central government)verses a Confereation (the power of the central government is only that which is grated by the states).

The Civil War became the turning point where there came into existence in a solid way - a Federal Government with independent power (no longer dependent upon being granted by the states) which considered itself equal to or greater than individual state powers.

There seems to be some truth to the above� how and where I do not know exactly � and feel no need to research - other than the fact that the North/South war - only had slavery as a side issue and it was used to political advantage and it was very few good men who viewed it in a humanitarian way.

This is how it seems to me.