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.

May I offer some short context?...

Notherners do not know about the real causes of the Civil War. They think it is just "are you for or against slavery?" and that is the way the winners of the Civil War liked it.

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.

My short history has no judgment of right or wrong about it. I take no side because it is even more complicated than I wrote above. We shall never know the true currents which shaped that war and those who get emotionally about it one way or the other - waste their time. The past (whatever it really was) is gone.

This is how it seems to me.

Not to mention that the Constituion explicitly says that States have the right to leave the Union at will.

Interestingly, I can see how this fits into Catholicism. Some fanatical RCs want the Catholic Church to have a very centralized hierarchy/government, while many other RCs and most Eastern Catholics want the Church to exist in a more confederational way. Perhaps this is a faulty parallel.

ChristTeen287

Would you care to show us where the Constitution says this?

anastasios

We've been here before. So I refer to old posts of mine, both on the supposed right of secession and the reasons behind hte secession of Southern states.

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000336;p=3
https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000336;p=2

The fact is the central issue of the secession and war, as stated unequivocally in documents of secession, was slavery. No amount of revisionist history can erase these words, which make the point incontrovertibly clear.

As to the moral posture of those who fought out of some libertarian impulse on the Southern side, notwithstanding their own personal views against slavery: are they different from people of today who, notwithstanding their own personal moral convictions against abortion, nevertheless in political battles take the opposite side. Those who would call the latter "pro-abortion" must also call the men like Davis and Gen. Lee "pro-slavery".

Anastasios,

http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/statesri.html

djs,

Admittedly, your last sentence did make sense.

ChristTeen287

djs has said:

So, apparently if Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia (and New York, New Hampshire, etc.) left the Union, they had every right to do so because they willingly entered into it.

Then djs states:

But, as we remember, South Carolina was the first State to secede, and it was one of the original Thirteen which entered into the Union. These newly developed States were not the initiators of the Secession nor the first to withdraw from the Union. Even if we agree that these new States didn't have the right to secede because they didn't willingly enter it (rather, they were conquered), the State to initiate independence was one Thirteen. Is it South Carolina's fault if some of these "new states" with apparently little rights joined them?

Whether or not someone has the "right" to secede is hardly the question. Did America have the right to secede from Great Britain? Did Ireland have the right? India?

The Southerners basically felt they were being oppressed and ill-treated by foreigners who happened to live under the same government. What is expected but to secede?

ChristTeen287

It was Slavery AND the Preservation of the Unity of the Nation under a freely elected President in 1860 (according to the limited suffrage at the time, granted) and the second reason is no less crucial

Dear CT:

First, notwithstanding your prior claim, there is and was no "explicit" statement about secession in the Constitution.

As I pointed out in the earlier thread, there did exist an idea among the original signatories that if the new Constitution proved as unworkable as the Articles of Confederation, the states could revert to thier former, independent status. By the time of the civil war, however, that experimental phase was long over. So it is unlikely that an attempt to secede by, say, New York, would have had merited any legal status. Ditto for South Carolina.

As to the Confederacy, I think that it is clear that no such status could be considered for entities that became states with no prior independent status. The collusion of States like South Carolina, with Mississippi, Texas etc., further vitiates any claim to a right of secession.

Don't confuse an imagined Constituional right of secession, with revolution. The Confederate States had no constitutional right to secede. Nevertheless, all people have such a right to revolution - to revolt against an old order and institute a new one. And all states have a right to contest a revolution.

Read the statements of secession. The cause of the south, as explicitly stated for example by Mississippi, was the institution of slavery. The southerners wanted their institution of slavery to be respected. They resented the opposition to slavery in the north. They resented the efforts of the north to proscribe slavery in new states, they resented the failure of northerners to return fugitive slaves, they resented the intolerence of the north for their lifestyle. It was an ignoble cause.

Agreed. I should have stated that the central issue in secession was the instituion of slavery. The central issue for the north in its response to the South was the preservation of the Union.

Of course I would disagree with the word �fanatical� as a misunderstanding of the RC understanding of the Primacy of Peter and the limits of �infallibility�. But these two different views (federation vers confederation) certainly are at the base of the church�s human divisions.

Both the Orthodox hierarchy and those in union with Rome - agree that there was and is a primacy by appointment that Jesus bestowed upon the office of Peter. Individual members of the Orthodox church may disagree with that but the majority of its hierarchy agree to that. However - the disagrement is regarding exactly what the function of that primacy was and is. That is the only disagreement - what the function of that primacy is - that remains a barrier in the high levels of Orthodox and Catholic theological discussions.

(Well - except for the Russian Orthodox church which is upset that with the demise of Communism and the return of Soviet satellite states to independent nations - they have lost a lot of Russian Orthodox property that the Communists gave them - and revenues - as local regional Churches, before Communist take over, are returned to such as Byzantine and Greek and others - once forced at gun point to be Russian Orthodox - being returned to their original owners and affiliations - so to them there exists a �Latin� conspiracy of Uniate - of which our Byzantine Catholic brother are accused to be. KGB agents raised to bishop ranks in the Russian church� convertion to Russian Orthodox or die� it is a mess to figure out. If you ask me it is the price to pay yet again for joining to close with temporal power. The Russian Metropolitan being the only remaining major hold-out to the almost universal Orthodox movement back to some kind of understanding and unity with Rome).

Both the East (at the time of Constantinople) and the West (during the Middle Ages of Europe) - in its human membership of individual priests and bishops became to joined with temporal power of kings and earthly kingdoms. The results - both times - were schism. I would guess that Providence was telling us something. Also - the results both times were to cut the church away from temporal powers. The demise of the Byzantine empire and the isolation of Rome to the Vatican.

If you take a purely human view of the church as a human institution - you can say it is either �federal� or �con-federal�. YOu are able to argue - is it that the individual bishops and churches derive their authority in t top-down manner or is it that the hierarchy gains their authority through a bottom up manner?

As the Body of Christ - it is neither.

In design - the appointed ecclesiastical primacy of the office of Peter - has no provisions as a temporal authority to force cooperation - like earthy kingdoms do.

The Catholic Church in all its parts is - a kingdom, a monarchy, a governing by God the King. This is not poetic, romantic, or symbolic. Its continuation is after the form of governing used by David (12 ministers from among which one is appointed Prime Minister). It does not derive its authority from democratic means. The disciples argued among themselves who would occupy what position in the expected restoration of the Davidic kingdom - not because they were lining up votes - but because they were trying to guess who Jesus would appoint. Eventually he appointed only 12 out of the 150 or so, and out of that 12 he further appointed Peter to primacy.

The �unity of Peter� comes about, on its human levels, only by the voluntary cooperation of the other bishops and particular churches. It is a spiritual primacy with the spiritual authority of a spiritual kingdom - that has no provisions for the use of temporal force to force cooperation.

Yes - individual Popes apparently have at times abused the position for reasons of temporal power just as many bishops of many churches and the Emperor of Constantinople did. Only Jesus and Mary were totally free of all personal sin.

The Pope of Rome is not personally infallible as a person (that belonged only to Jesus Christ - perhaps Mary could be in error but not in sin - I dunno) perhaps better said is that doctrines are infallible under certain conditions which include the approval of the Primacy of the office of Peter of Rome. A council of the Church cannot be universal nor ecumenical without the participation and final approval of the Bishop of Rome - which approval insures its infallible nature.

Orthodox may argue this a different way - but - there is no possibility of an Orthodox only council (no invitation to the Bishop of Rome) for being elevated to Ecumenical. The last Ecumenical council recognized to be raised to Ecumenical status included the approval of Peter.

This is not to say that Peter (or any priest or bishop) gains his authority through a bottom up mode (authorized by the confederation through democratic means). The priesthood and its functions and hierarchical structure is not bestowed by the members of the church (as it is the bestowal of the position of minister in some Protestant or Evangelical churches who do not have the priesthood).

The priesthood - its powers and authority - in all Catholic churches (including Orthodox etc�) are appointed by succession traced back to appointment by Jesus himself. The election to higher office is not considered such that the members of the church now bestow further authority to the one elected - but that it is a Providential act - through the results of the election - that makes the Holy Spirit�s choice known.

The authority of the church operates - top down - the voluntary cooperation of the members of the church is - bottom-up. The Body of Christ is a spiritual Kingdom of governing top-down which invites but does not demand - our cooperation bottom-up.

This is how I see it. Refer to the cathchism of the Catholic Church.

Thank you, Ray. A wonderfully enlightening and thought-provoking post. I need not be so hasty in pinning the Church down with secular political terms.

ChristTeen287

Dear RayK,

"Approval of Peter"

Yes, you are right. But the Orthodox reticence to hold a Council without the Roman Pope has NOTHING to do with the Pope's authority, but with the fact that the Latin Church is also part of the wider "oikumene."

There were, in fact, two papal signatures on the canons of Ecumenical Councils - that of the Pope of Rome and that of the Pope of Alexandria.

And the Petrine See, or "Peter" as you say, was seen even by Pope Gregory I himself as comprising not "Rome alone," but the three Sees founded by Peter - Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (via St Mark, Peter's disciple).

"Peter" is in the major Patriarchates of the Church. He is also in the Episcopate.

The only real reason why Rome became the only Apostolic See in the West was because Rome was the only city in the West that could claim Apostolic foundation.

St Peter and the Apostles founded many Sees in the East, even among many, many villages.

Rome's precedence at Councils and as an authority figure came also from the fact that the Church was largely organized along the lines of the ancient Roman empire of which Elder Rome was the capital and where the relics of BOTH Sts Peter and Paul were venerated.

The East has consistently held to a collegial understanding of "Peter."

And while I have nothing against monarchy , the medieval understanding of the Pope as "Pontifex Maximus" is neither an absolute requirement of Scripture or Tradition nor is it an adviseable image of the Papacy for this day and age.

Alex

"...praise the South for their food (except the opossum, armadillo, and river rat dishes), their culture..."

"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."

Good grief. I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding of Louisiana and its rather unique, very Catholic Southern culture. Forgive me for going off topic but my Accadian ancestors would visit me if I didn't defend my heritage.

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri,

Is "Cajun" a form of "Acadian" or "Canadian?"

Alex

Cajun is short for Acadian. It comes for "Acadiana" which is the original French name of the area now called Nova Scotia. My people were driven out by the British in the mid 1700s. Many settled in Louisiana due to its French culture and language (and Catholicsm). No offense, but it would be too English to call ourselves Canadian even abreviated (Vive Quebec...)

Dmitri

Dmitri,

I didn't mean it in a derogatory way! I just thought that the Cajuns had that type of food? My Math teacher is Cajun; she made us some gumbo just the other day, actually!

Everyone,

This thread has gotten rather off the original topic. This thread isn't aimed at discussing Petrine Primacy, or even whether or not the South was right in the War or Northern Aggression (woops, Civil War), but is only aimed at sharing opinions on the Catholic Church's apparent endorsement and recognition of the CSA.

ChristTeen287

Dear ChristTeen,

It is?

What's so great about that issue?

Alex

That's quite enough, Dr. Roman!

JK!

ChristTeen287