About book Upon The Altar Of The Nation: A Moral History Of The Civil War (2007)
It seems like war is a defining in every American generation. My father was part of the Greatest Generation fighting in the European Theater during WW2. For me, it was hoping that Richard Nixon would wind down the Vietnam war before my number came up in the lottery. For my son, it has been the post 9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.Perhaps no war has been more defining in the American Experience than the Civil War--in the loss of lives, the end of slavery, the death of Lincoln, Reconstruction, the character of the South, and our continuing experience around issues of race. Harry S Stout would argue that the war functioned in a defining way in terms of our moral reasoning as a nation about war and indeed in the establishing of our national consciousness.Stout examines the moral justifications of the war North and South, including much of the preaching in pulpits on each side, both of which argued that God was on their side. He traces the declarations of fast days and days of Thanksgiving (including our national holiday) and shows the rise of a civil religion around these declarations. He explores the just war principles of proportion and discrimination and how these were gradually abandoned, most notably in the total mobilization of the South for war and the total annihilation Sherman brought in his march to the sea. (One thing I wish Stout would have explored here in greater depth was the morality of Davis's steadfast refusal following the losses of 1863 to recognize the futility of fighting on. He does note Davis's stubbornness and even inclination to guerilla warfare. It seems to me that abandonment of proportion and discrimination inevitably follows the attempts to escalate resistance in futile situations.)Lincoln stands apart in Stout's treatment. As most clearly evident in his second inaugural address, Lincoln sees God as not on either side but somehow ordaining this tragic effusion of blood as both atonement for slavery and as necessary to redeem the union. Indeed, seeing casualties as sacrifices for the nation was part of the rhetoric of this war (and doubtless many since) that reflects another aspect of civil religion and national consciousness. Indeed, Lincoln's death itself was seen in Christological terms as a sacrifice for the nation.What is most troubling is to see pastors and theologians on both sides appropriating the language of the kingdom for their side and in service of an American national consciousness that establishes precedents up to the present day. It raises profound questions about what it will take for the American church to escape its cultural captivity to the American state.
There ought to be more books of this nature written--moral critiques of wars. Stout does an excellent job of sorting through the history of the march toward war, the conduct of the war, and finally an evaluation of the two sides as peace prevailed. It is clear from the beginning that the North believed the cause of 'Union' was a just one--that secession must be defeated. Nowhere was this evaluated--it was assumed. What an amazing assumption! It is also clear that the radical ideology of abolitionism had a strong influence on the self-righteous cause of Northern aggression.In the south, the cause was seen as just because slavery was instituted and ordained by God--another dubious moral claim. It is one thing to believe that the Bible does not condemn slavery--which it does not. But it is another to claim the righteousness and God-ordained nature of African slavery. It is clear in this book that both sides were self-righteous in their God-justified cause of war. This arrogance led to the belief, at first, that the war would be swiftly won. When it wasn't and as casualties piled up the cause was escalated by even more radical religiosity that only led to further escalation, bloodshed, and atrocities. By the middle of the war neither side was willing, or even considered concessions. The thing was too far gone and the war had become a complete moral debacle.Lincoln seems to have understood the situation with the most clarity, when in his 2nd inaugural address he says God "gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came..." Both sides were in the wrong, and both sides reaped destruction. I greatly appreciated the work Stout did in assembling the evidence of the guilt on both sides of the war. In addition, the more central theme of the book is the advent of the American Civil Religion that came out of the war. Both sides, but particularly the Protestant North practiced a worship of the state, its armies, generals, and soldiers. This idolatry is perhaps the most enduring legacy of the war. I found this to be the most shocking and disheartening aspect of the book. It is easy to see this today--particularly in the church's stance regarding our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--and with the drumbeat to war against Iran and North Korea.
Do You like book Upon The Altar Of The Nation: A Moral History Of The Civil War (2007)?
Teaching the Civil War has always been a dilemma for me as it is difficult to argue that war is never the right choice when this particular war ended slavery. In "Upon the Altar of the Nation," Stout gives me a new perspective by arguing that the horrific bloodshed was a result of an emerging civic religion that both justified the destruction and demanded it as a baptism of blood, a demand the generals of both sides seemed willing to meet (except McClellan). Rarely, as Stout points out, did anyone argue that the carnage must end, that it was all too much, that the destruction was disproportionate to the offensive of secession. He argues that the emancipation proclamation was Lincoln’s move to total war, making a negotiated peace impossible and thereby satisfying the demands to destroy the enemy of what the north was now defining as a holy nation being sanctified by blood. Very interesting ideas that should have been stated in half as many pages. I have been reading it too slowly, perhaps, and frequently finding myself wondering if I hadn’t misplaced my marker as the sentences seemed repetitious. But by 1863 the war must have seemed for most Americans a bloody repetition. Should I teach again, I am going to completely rewrite my lecture on the civil war, this time emphasizing the creation of our civic religion. This does not resolve my dilemma, but it allows me to highlight the insanity of war.
—Janet
Very interesting, enjoyable and worthwhile read. It seems to set out to examine whether the Civil War was a "just war." I'm not sure it left me with a clear conclusion on that issue, however, it did leave me with a much better feeling for the descent of both sides into the tragedy of precedent-setting "total war." Stout does a great job of portraying citizens, clergy, press, politicians and generals descending into increased acceptance of spilled blood; while many eventually developed a near blood lust.Lincoln is presented as one of the few (maybe the only one) who maintains throughout "malice toward none," although Stout holds the president ultimately responsible for eventual total war. But it is Grant, and especially Sherman and Sheridan that Stout judges harshly, as related to taking the war to the citizens. He blames Sherman's march to the sea for creating more animosity and determination among those (especially the women) it impacted directly. He even links the resentment of Sherman's actions to the creation of the "Lost Cause." And he reminds us that the "total war" justification was used by Grant/Sherman/Sheridan to slaughter men, women and children in their later, definitely unjust war against Native Americans.Throughout, Stout presents the war as creating a secular national religion for both South and North that focuses on nation worship, with its blood sacrifices, its destiny and role as the great hope of the world, and finally with its martyred messiah in Abraham Lincoln.I enjoyed reading quotes from sermons of ministers in North and South and gaining a better understanding of the role religion and its spokesmen played in the war culture. The most interesting and unexpected contention in the book was that the South was actually less religious than the North at the onset of the war, but that the war, revivals and conversions of Southern soldiers led to a dramatically increased religious society and culture when those same soldiers came home. Intriguing stuff.I'm glad I read it.
—Michael Roueche
Excellent. Finally a book on the Civil War that looks at history of it from start to finish not just as names and dates, nor a romanticized view of knights in shining armor dying for hearth and home. Harry S. Stout takes a hard look at both the promenint names, the rank and file, and finally those on the homefront of both sides. He manages to untwist the years of 'lost cause' mentality of the south and the 'crusaders' of the north to paint a portrait of what really happened in this country a hundred and forty years ago. If you are new to the subject and want to be immeresed in the TRUTH of it, this is the only book to read. If you hold strong ideals and opinions, though, on the period in our history, approach wiht caution. It will likely shake pre-concived notions to the core. All in all, this is an invalubale piece of work if you want to understand why America is what is today.
—Scott
