Clergy Dissent in the Old South 1830-1865

[Gene C]

Written by David Chesebrough, published in 1996. About 100 pages with about 30 additional pages of footnotes and bibliography.

An interesting subject, but too academic an approach to the material for me. The information was interesting, but the presentation of the material was flat. Perhaps it was not the authors intent, but this could have been a very encouraging and inspiring book. The telling of their sacrifices for what they believed in lacked emotion. It didn't engage me in their suffering.

However, I am glad I read this and the stories of some of the people who sacrificed so much to what they believed in. I have a greater understanding of how important the clergy's role was in their community. Most of the dissenting clergy received their higher education in northern schools. Most of them had to leave the churches and community they were serving. Where they lived, preaching against slavery was bad enough, but it was worse (treasonous) to be preaching against secession.

Reasonably priced (my copy, used like new was $3.25) I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

http://www.amazon.com/Clergy-Dissent-Old...gy+dissent

[LincolnToddFan]

Gene, this sounds interesting. I've always been intrigued by role played by religion and the American clergy in the ante-bellum and Civil War years. Thanks!

[L Verge]

Does the book happen to mention Parson Lemuel Wilmer, a side figure in the Lincoln assassination story, who literally stuck to his Union guns and continued to preach from his pulpit at St. Paul's Piney Episcopal Church in Charles County, Maryland? To irritate his communicants even more, Sec. of War Stanton granted Parson Wilmer a commission as a chaplain in the Union forces.

[Gene C]

He's not mentioned in this book

[LincolnMan]

Brings to mind a part in the book written by Frederick Douglass where he talks about hearing folks singing in a church while he was in bondage as a slave. Lincoln stated that both sides read the same Bible.

[Wild Bill]

I would not take the apologetic Southerner no matter his or her background too much to heart. It has a lot to do with the individual and here he or she lives in the South. I have done a lot of research in Texas and I found the "I'm sorry" attitude missing in whites of both sexes. I suspect a lot of this came from the Atlantic coastal region or the Border states. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas were vicious in their treatment of blacks before and after the Civil War, according to the primary sources I have read. As one Texan put it, their treatment of freed blacks after the war was no worse than while they were slaves and more justified now "that they had no jingle." That is, no monetary value to the whites.

They read different Bibles, or the Bible differently. They also preached different Bibles to the slaves. Preachers who did not were regularly runout of their parishes when they contradicted the system. Hanging and tar and feathering were also common to dissenters from the slave system. Their Yankee education or birth only increased their danger. All denominations split on the slavery issue before the Civil War, becoming Northern or Southern. It is old, but Clement Eaton's Freedom of Thought Struggle in the Old South examines all of this. Newspaper editors had to be especially careful and many editors suffered physical violence from during or mob action or had their type fonts thrown in the river. See the life of Cassius Marcellus Clay (not Muhammad Ali, but the white Kentucky cousin of Henry Clay), in David L Smiley, Lion of Whitehall for a good read.

[Craig Hipkins]

Some abolitionist preachers were even murdered in the North. Elijah Lovejoy was shot and killed by a pro-slavery mob in Alton Illinois in 1837. The mob had come to burn down his warehouse and destroy his printing press.
As a young politician in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln mentioned Lovejoy in his Lyceum Address in 1838.

[LincolnToddFan]

As a Catholic, I am interested in the stance taken by the Vatican on American slavery and the American Civil War. The impression that I have gotten is that Pope Pius IX at least was sympathetic to the Confederate Cause.. he is alleged to have sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns while Davis was in prison.( This "crown" can be seen at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond.)

And of course there is the Rumor That Will Not Die. The Jesuits were behind the assassination of President Lincoln.

What about the official stance of the American Catholic clergy during the war? Did they split along regional lines?

[Gene C]

(03-06-2015 09:57 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  What about the official stance of the American Catholic clergy during the war? Did they split along regional lines?

For the most part, yes.

[STS Lincolnite]

(03-06-2015 09:57 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  The impression that I have gotten is that Pope Pius IX at least was sympathetic to the Confederate Cause.. he is alleged to have sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns while Davis was in prison.( This "crown" can be seen at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond.)

I think the Pope, like many other European leaders, was at least somewhat sympathetic to the Confederacy. But as others have posted, he was too busy with his own problems to be in a position to offer any sort of official recognition much less help.

The Pope did send an autographed picture to Jefferson Davis during his imprisonment but probably not a crown of thorns as been alleged. The famous (or infamous?) crown of thorns was more likely woven by Varina Davis. This was brought up in another thread not too long ago but I can't remember which one. Here are the websites that I posted in that thread.

This was an original blog post discussing the crown. It was updated after reading some reader comments (one of which was from Karen Cox articulating that the Museum of the Confederacy's research had shown that it was Varina that had woven the crown) that called into question the veracity of the crown being sent by the Pope.
http://cwmemory.com/2009/09/10/so-it-was...after-all/

This one is a follow up post that gives some more information on the historical confusion.
http://cwmemory.com/2009/09/27/update-on...of-thorns/

[Eva Elisabeth]

(03-06-2015 09:57 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  As a Catholic, I am interested in the stance taken by the Vatican on American slavery and the American Civil War. The impression that I have gotten is that Pope Pius IX at least was sympathetic to the Confederate Cause.. he is alleged to have sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns while Davis was in prison.( This "crown" can be seen at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond.)

Toia, I once posted the following on another thread ( http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...0885.html? ):

The closest Confederate government probably came to recognition was in 1863, when the Confederacy appointed Ambrose Dudley Mann as special agent to the Holy See on September 24. After a meeting, Mann received by His Holiness Pope Pius IX a letter addressed to the “Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, Richmond,” that concluded with a hope for a union in “perfect friendship".Mann, in his dispatch to Richmond, interpreted the letter as "a positive recognition of our Government." The pope's letter to Jefferson Davis was accompanied by an autographed picture of the pope.

Davis interpreted this communication as a form of recognition and hoped that this letter would be the first step towards widespread European recognition. The letter was reported in Southern newspapers with the implication that Pope Pius IX supported the Confederacy. You can read the entire letter of Jefferson Davis to the Pope and the Pope's reply to Davis here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/08...-pio-nono/

Judah P. Benjamin, however, in a letter of Jan. 29, 1864, interpreted this as "a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations" and thus not as formal recognition.

General Robert E. Lee kept a portrait of the Pope in his house, and referred to him as "the South's only true friend during her time of need".

Toia, as for the stance taken by the Vatican, especially Pius, on American slavery and the American Civil War - you might find the following site interesting, especially (scroll down) the passage entitled "Pius IX and the Confederacy":
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...n_rome.htm

[L Verge]

In another post, I mentioned the slave-holding Catholic parishes in Maryland, predominantly Jesuit in direction. Here's an interesting article about the history being incorporated into the American Studies program at Georgetown University:

http://georgetownvoice.com/2007/02/08/th...ts-slaves/

[LincolnToddFan]

Eva, thanks for the article. It confirmed what I suspected about Pius IX and his attitude toward the conflict. I disagree 99%, with his ideas, especially the conclusion that the propagation of Catholicism would be easier and more amenable in the South, due to the conservative social structure. What about the huge influx of Catholic immigrants into the North from Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc? For many decades before being replaced by Los Angeles, the archdioceses of New York and Chicago had more Catholics than anywhere in North America. The Northern, liberal bent of those cities did not stop the Catholic faith from spreading like wildfire. And for years no Catholic communities were as devout and as loyal to Rome as those Irish-Americans immigrants in the North.

Ah well. The attitude and opinions of his Holiness are a perfect examples of the limits of papal infallibility.

Scott and Laurie, thanks much for the information and the sources provided. As for the "crown" story I agree that it's much more likely that the gift was from Davis's own deeply religious wife Varina than from the pope.

[L Verge]

I was surprised by the one source that had Jefferson Davis raised in the Baptist faith and then converting as an adult to the High Anglican. That truly was one heck of a leap of faith!

Does anyone know when he was confirmed in the Anglican/Episcopal Church? Was he trying to gain favor with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England?

[Wild Bill]

No, on the arch bishop. He was advancing in class status from low church to high church. The episcopal church was considered more upper classy.