Pictures of Jesus > > Home

Upon the Altar of the Nation

Just war theory and the Civil War

Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2007 by Charlie Trimm
Categories: Military Issues  

Besides theology and biblical studies, the other major category of reading I do is military history. I am no expert in the topic, but it is a nice diversion from too much Hebrew. But since I am doing more thinking about just war theory and war in the Bible, I have been more interested in finding works that do a Christian military history, or a moral history. Upon the Altar of the  Nation by Harry Stout is the first work I have found in this genre and it is an excellent introduction. Stout looks at the Civil War from a moral perspective to see what he will find. He comes to two main conclusions in my reading of the book. The structure of the book follows the war throughout the time of actual fighting and looks at both the tactics as well as the attitudes of the soldiers, generals, the preachers back home and the newspapers.

1.      He spends most of his time looking at whether the Civil War was a justly fought war. He decides (strongly) that it was not fought in a just manner. There was little sense of proportion, for example, and by the end of the war civilians were almost being viewed as military personnel. But that is not what he is highly concerned. His major point is that it was an unjust war and NO ONE CARED. The papers on both sides as well as the preachers, of all denominations, ignored the unjust aspects of the war and simply supported their side. They did argue about the war was being conducted, but only on rare occasions was a concern raised about a moral issue.

2.      The reason that no moral issue was raised, according to Stout, is that a civil religion was being formed. A glue was needed to keep each side together, and a civil American religion became key for both sides, and especially the North. For example, generals were priests. The dead in battle became martyrs, and were spoken of dying as upon the altar of the nation. When the nation collective becomes the god, then no moral questions are needed to be asked, because all means can be taken for the service of God.

Implications for today? Two areas. First, we need to be more discerning and questioning about wars going on today and how they are being conducted. Second, we need to be aware of the American civil religion and not be deceived by a confusion of a civil religion with our following of God. It is a great book, and any of you interested in military history should read it.

Monday, September 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Eric wrote: 

It has been some time since I have added comments here.  Lately I have found myself spending a lot of time outside, but this post intrigued me a bit.  I have a personal interest in the topic, due largely to my military background and having spent a year in "combat". 

Regarding the book, I haven't read it yet, but hope to at some point, I imagine that your summation is entirely accurate.  It sounds to me like he is trying to draw a strong distinction between the relgious nature of personal lifestyles at the time and a growing sense of nationalism.  My issue is that this was very much the nature of the times.  People viewed every aspect of their lives from a religious lense.  As a result, every decision was a religious one, even a political one.  As a result, the language of war was naturally thematically spiritual.  The same could be said of most wars prior to that, and most since.  The idea of civil religion, it seems to me, is another attempt to draw a distinction that never existed.  

Your first implication assumes that the current conflict we are in, was not well thought out, and that it is accepted along with all the collateral damage without challenge.  Unfortunately people have forgotten too quickly what got us into this conflict, and I don't simply mean 9/11.  A conflict of this scape has never before been fought with such concern for collateral damage.  

In asking the question about the justification for war or armed conflict ask; what it would take for you to take up arms?  Would you fight for your wife and child?  Would you fight for your own life?  Would you fight for your freedoms? Under what circumstances?  

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:42 PM

Charlie wrote: 

Thanks for your comments, Eric. I hope to hear what you think of the book whenever you read it.

The author is arguing at least for what you are saying in regards to religion, but also something more. The something more is not just that people become more spiritual (the book has many stories of this happening during the war, as well as many who lost their faith), but the object of their faith was chaning. In a very real sense, the nation became God. The object of worship became the Union or the Confederacy, and the nation could do nothing wrong. The problem is that any means necessary could be used to support this new god, which Stout claims leads to the lack of proportion and total war in the latter years of the war.

I agree with your assessment of the current war in relation to just war standards, especially when compared to wars of the past 200 years. Stout dedicates his book to a man (father perhaps, don't remember), who fought in World War II, and he calls that a just war. But that war certainly had its problems, even if you do not take into account the nuclear side. But we also need to pay attention to what is going on and not simply assume that a war is just. The problem is that the leaders can't tell us everything, so we have to trust them. But due to the effect of sin, we can't always trust them. It is rather a catch-22 situation.  

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:48 PM

Eric wrote: 

Thank you for the clarification.  There is always the tendancy, need really, for soldiers to believe in their cause.  People don't fight without one.  People involved in war also tend to become more spiritual as time goes on.  You have no doubt heard, "there are no atheists in foxholes".  You have to wrap your mind, very quickly, around the concept that your life is not in your hands.  I personally witnessed a lot of death and distruction in my time in Iraq, but the most remarkable thing I ever saw was a good friend of mine in a hospital bed, bruised from head to toe.  His humvee was hit by a massive series of ieds.  The entire front end of the vehicle was gone.  Yet everyone in that vehicle survived and returned to duty within two weeks.  What strikes you most is not those who die, but those who survive against all odds.  It is that type of thing that forces you to confront the reality that all aspects of life have a spiritual dimension.

Every war has issues.  WWII was called the "good war" or the "just war" because we had such a clearly defined enemy who was truly evil beyond description.  But as you point out, it had its ugly side too.  The Japanese American citizen internments was to my mind among the darkest elements of our actions at the time.  But war is by definition a horror and it is a zero sum game.  In order to win, you must be willing to do truly terrible things, and this is something that makes people really uncomfortable.

You are correct to point out that we cannot trust our leaders to be just or right.  But when David ordered Bathsheba's(sp?) husband to the battle front, God held David accountable and not the soldiers.  It is also worth pointing out that God himself has used war graphically and brutally.  It is wrong to assume that God has stopped using war today.

Were the German's culpable for following Hitler?  I think that they were, because what he represented was so clearly an abomination.  Are the soldiers in Rawanda responsible for the horrors that have raviged that country?  I think so, again the evil represented is so easily discernable.  Is America in any way involved in evil of these categories?  It simply isn't the case.  But war isn't about being nice and feeling good.  It is the big stick of diplomacy and it is always a bitter pill.  Perhaps it is a dynamic tension?

Monday, October 08, 2007 10:05 AM

Josh wrote: 

Charlie,

 I have just started in on Stout's book.  If you are looking for some professional takes on it, First Things, Books & Culture, and fides et historia have had reviews worth reading.  The latter is substantial and references a number of other reviews and some critiques of and defenses by the author.

I am not too far into it (only about the first 4 chapters) but I have skimmed other portions of it.  I think the idea (a moral history) is commendable, but I have been disappointed in the book so far.  I think he significantly overstates the concept of civil religion.  Early in the book he argues that a religiousized conception of America existed prior to the Civil War, but I found his proof to be insufficient to establish this premise.  He makes statements such as "West Point was the seminary of American civil religion" and I don't think he is at all correct in maintaining this.  I think one could make a much stronger case for arguing the Civil War was a cause, rather than a result, of a "civil-religion" view of America. 

He also seems to be struggling with trying to adapt the tension between loyalty to state vs. loyalty to nation.  If his civil religion is pre-eminent, one would expect to find the latter to be more common.  And indeed, he marshals a lot of evidence about men fighting for their nation.  But he has to account for the importance of regionalism which works contrary to his claims re: civil religion.  And I don't think he handles this particularly well.

A complicating factor in this discussion, and also in the extensive debate about the religious views of the Founding Fathers, the religious language and vocabulary of the times make it hard to sort out exactly what is meant by what someone said.  E.g. when Ben Franklin refers to an "Almighty Providence", it means something very differnent then if a theoblogian refers to an "Almighty Providence".

I hope to share some more of my thoughts as I work through the book.  Incidentally Charlie, you may wish to take a look at Stephen Woodward's While God is Marching On: the Religious World of Civil War Soldiers.

Josh

Monday, October 08, 2007 12:03 PM

Eric wrote: Another related book

Charlie, you may also be interested in a recent book by David Gelernter entitled "Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion."   I have not had a chance to purchase and read this book yet, but I heard an outstanding interview on it a week or so ago and I immediately thought about this discussion.

 In essence, he argues that Christianity in America is divergent from Protestantism and Catholicism to the point of it being a distinct Biblical Religion in its own right.  As I said, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but the arguments he made in the interview were excellent.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:25 AM

Charlie wrote:  Thank you guys for your suggestions. I have added both of those books to my amazon list, so I will get around to them at some point. I just picked up Mark Noll's America's God from a used bookstore and I am looking forward to reading it, as it covers some of these same themes. Noll has been critiqued by some for making too many generalities and ignoring exceptions, but it still looks like quite the read. Josh, thanks for your comments. I need you history guys to keep me honest. I look forward to what you say about the book as a whole.

Login to add comments