Alan J. Pitts
Re: Religion Has No Place
Thu Jul 5 12:39:37 2001


Perhaps we should start another thread on slavery, wealthy planters, poor whites and beat patrols (of course the word "beat" in this context has nothing to do with violent behavior). Along these lines I highly recommend James Oakes' "The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders" which presents slavery from the perspective of slaveholders, using their values and understanding of morality rather than ours. Here's a brief link:

http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall97/Rulerace.htm

As you might imagine, there are multitudes of others on the web about this book. In my limited understanding of the subject, it is among the best treatments of the subject available today. When I have opportunities to speak on the subject, I try to review Oakes beforehand to provide meaningful and interesting illustrations. To someone whose sum total of knowledge on slavery consists of watching "Mandingo" and/or parts of Alex Haley's "Roots", it's a great surprise to learn that the typical slaveholder owned about five blacks, young and old, male and female.

Hoyt, isn't it ironic that the beat patrols shifted their attention from runaway blacks to runaway whites after passage of the Conscript Act? You may have noticed my post yesterday on Colonel Oates' comments on what motivated poor whites to fight and die. These are reasonably accurate but not easy to present to a contemporary audience, as you can well understand.

I'd opt for not starting a thread here on relgion, which may properly be defined as man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. For what it's worth, Christianity offers a unique and different approach to this eternal problem. But that's another topic for another message board.

I'd rather limit my comments to yesterday' post about most Southerners at the time of the war not being church-goers. Certainly not everyone who belonged to a church in that day was a Christian, the reverse being true as well. Abraham Lincoln provides an excellent example of someone who knew the Bible well but remained an unbeliever and scoffer until very late in life. Along these lines, the language in his second inaugural address is very revealing.

The lady's sentiments are worthy and well-phrased, but personally I could never ascribe to the view that the war aims of either side had any connection to religious liberty. Obviously we have strong feelings on that subject, as well we should, but someone will have to remind me of any American military action initiated for that reason.

I dearly love these topics and will gladly engage in lengthy dialogues on any of them. However, I cannot agree with any attempt to clothe EITHER side in the war for southern independence in purity of purpose and righteousness.

The "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is a lovely song and also contains lofty sentiments. However, I'm a member of a small and steadily diminishing group of Southerners who steadfastly refuse to sing it, despite complaints and occasional jabs in the ribs by my wife. I've had to explain my reasoning on that song to incredulous friends and neighbors just about every July 4th, including yesterday. Perhaps I should declare myself a total hard-shell and refuse to participiate in all future July 4th observances!