"Religious groups engaged militarily in the ACW" Topic

Hello everyone,
We have not spoken about religious groups engaged militarily in the ACW.

No "particular" religious regiments among the belligerents?

For example I know that there was a Mormon battalion in the U.S. army during the war against Mexico in 1846-48.

Only if "free-thinking" is a religion, I believe. The turnverein raised I think five "Turner" regiments, but the designation was never official, and you find them listed by state and number among the other volunteer units. No distinction of uniform that I'm aware of, though one of them--the 20th New York Volunteers (United Turner Rifles) carried a Black-Red-Gold revolutionary German flag as well as a US flag. 1st Missouri Volunteers (48% Turner) was another unit with a very strong Turner contingent referred to as the "Turner Battalion."

Irish regiments, of course, were very heavily Catholic. Protestant Irish immigrants weren't Irish nationalists, and did not march under green flags with gold harps. And anything raised in or around New Orleans could be expected to have a priest for a Chaplain.

Or of course if the worship of Mammon is a religion, there's the Chicago Board of Trade Battery, which was not on any state list. The CBOT raised it, and at the end of the war records were handed over the the CBOT rather than the Illinois Adjutant General.

There weren't any that I am aware of. The country was Christian, so you would find religious affiliation based on region. Irish regiments are going to have a lot of Catholics, New England regiments would have a lot of Anglicans, Southern regiments would have Baptists (and, to a lesser degree, Methodists), and German regiments may have a lot of Lutherans. You will find religious majorities by default; not as part of a plan.

There was the huge revival in both armies, especially Confederate. This is where the Bible Belt came from.

link

ccording to the Confederate chaplain J. William Jones, by the end of the war, 150,000 soldiers had been converted.[4][6] Kurt O. Berends argues that the revivals were a major cultural event.[7] Ben House suggests that the revivals provided "the spiritual resources that would be necessary to enable the South to survive defeat and Reconstruction with a strong Bible base still intact."[8]

Mild quibbles. New England was predominantly Congregationalist. There's an Anglican elite everywhere, but an Anglican rank and file especially in the Tidewater. And those German regiments will also have a strong Catholic element, not to mention Calvinist and Ashkenazi Jewish. You hear--or heard--arguments that the lack of a unifying religion is why German-Americans don't have a cultural impact proportionate to their numbers. Methodists were nearing their high-water mark, and were found everywhere, though there's a north-south split in 1845.

The religious revival is especially strong in the Confederate armies because they're late off the mark. The Third Great Awakening had largely swept the north before the was.

But 79th is right: regiments were raised by areas and sometimes ethnicities. You sometimes got a predominance of one religion or another as a consequence of that, but not as a plan.

Confederate General Leonidas Polk was an Episcopalian bishop.

Not really. When got to certain states in the mid-west you would likely find some regiments that were mostly Lutheran if the were Germans or Swedish ect. Or if Irish very catholic. But no one joined because of their religion to serve in a regiment of their faith.

@robert piepenbrink
"Or of course if the worship of Mormon is a religion", the Mormon cult is not a religion?

And the Jews during the ACW? They serve in German regiments I suppose?

They are exempt from military service?

At that time there were no Muslims in the U.S.A.?

@79thPA
Yes in fact, there was no religious regiment…

@doc mcb
The war made rebels believers..?

@Grattan54
Yes no one joined because of their religion to serve in a regiment of their faith.

Everyone got along well then?

Not "Mormon," hi EEE ya--"Mammon." It's a Biblical word for commerce or wealth, and sometimes said to be the god worshipped at stock exchanges and such.

I count Mormonism as a religion, but they do not worship "Mormon." They regard themselves as Christians and are formally "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"--which is getting well beyond TMP's remit.

Jews served as their neighbors served. Since in 1860 many were German-speaking immigrants, you would expect a higher percentage in predominantly German regiments than you would in regiments raised in, say, South Carolina or Maine. No, they were not exempt from conscription. Why would you think so?

There was no significant number or community of Muslims in the United States at that time--or at any time prior to the "Great Society" immigration laws of the 1960's and 1970's. I have no time machine and am not going door to door in 1860's port cities looking for stray seamen or merchants. It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative in any event.

Questions addressed to others. A Christian religious revival, usually called "the Third Great Awakening" was sweeping the United States during the Civil War era, and hit the south largely during the war. Since it had hit the north just before the war, there is no reason to think the war caused it.

People don't always get along well in military units today, and there is not reason to think the ACW was a period of great harmony. But any religious disputes do not seem to have caused serious disciplinary concerns.

Bickering among the various denominations and religious groups during the war or by soldiers in various regiment was not a problem during the war. Not an issue. Partly this could be because prior to the war the major protestant denominations all broke apart over the issue of slavery. There is that pesky slavery issue again. Leading to northern and southern branches of Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian. Although much smaller than the big three Lutherans also broke over the issue as well.

@robert piepenbrink
If people do not always get along well in military units, it depends on the countries and the times and precisely as Americans have always been considered great believers and Europeans of the 19th century much more than today, I would have thought that before the introduction of conscription, that the American Civil War was a period of great religious harmony because there was no mixing thanks to volunteering.

I would not have believed either that before the introduction of conscription the "Mammons" did not have their own battalions as in 1846 and that Jews rather Ashkenazi than Sephardic or Mizrahim did not prefer like Christians to serve with their coreligionists, because with conscription, no one, whatever their origins or religion, had a choice anymore.

@Grattan54
Protestant religious groups split because of the slavery issue?
Not very Christian all that.

"Protestant religious groups split because of the slavery issue?
Not very Christian all that."

You have an interesting notion of "Christian" he EEE ya. When you can't agree on whether or not a particular activity is a sin is exactly when you shouldn't be in the same denomination. The Methodist split, for instance, was over whether anyone who kept slaves had the unblemished reputation required of a bishop. When the General Conference decided that slaveowners shouldn't be bishops--there were in fact none at the time--the Methodist churches who believed that slave-holding was not in itself unchristian withdrew and formed the Southern Methodists. The same sort of thing is going on today.

Or are Christians not supposed to have any standard of behavior?

Please pay at least minimal attention. The religious body is "Mormon." "Mammon" is a word for wealth or commerce.

The OP is clearly a trouble maker.
He asks questions that are easy to answer and then has a hissy fit when he doesn't get the answer he wants.
The split between the Methodists and Baptists into Southern and Northern lines was purely about the sinfulness of slavery. Yet he can't wrap his head around that.
Basically, if you own slaves, it's not sinful. If you don't it is.

@robert piepenbrink
I didn't know the word "Mammon" before you mentioned it on August 16th.

Also if It's a Biblical word for commerce or wealth, and sometimes said to be the god worshipped at stock exchanges and such, it's not about that in this topic, but religious groups in the ACW like the Mormons for example, the religious sect that provided a battalion to the U.S. Army in 1846 against Mexico, I just thought they had done the same in 1861.

I have an interesting notion of "Christian"?

For me a Christian should not have slaves because it is something that Christ would not have approved.

You have a strange opinion of what Christ would say.
Ephesians 6 5:8
"In Ephesians 6:5–8, Paul states "Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ". Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22–24, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, and Titus 2:9–10."
Are you saying that Paul is not to be trusted? 🤷 Well, that wipes out about 40% of the New Testament.
Bottom line is that Jesus never condemned slavery.

"For me a Christian should not have slaves because it is something that Christ would not have approved."

Exactly the argument of the northern Protestants, dating back to the Quakers in 1776, who banned slaveholders from their monthly meetings, and I agree with it.

The southern Protestants argued that neither Christ nor St Paul had upset the existing political and social order, and that anyway certain people were incapable of making good choices for themselves and had to be governed by wise and benevolent masters. The argument dates at least to Plato, and was still being made the last time I checked the political news.

But surely this argument belongs on The Politics Page? Or The Theology Page?

And it was not that the word "Mammon" was unfamiliar to you on the 16th, that irked me, but your continued use of it as synonym for Mormon after I explained it. It takes all the fun out of informing people when they pay no attention.

@robert piepenbrink
I repeat "For me a Christian should not have slaves because it is something that Christ would not have approved."

We end up agreeing on something – but also think about the language barrier between us -.

Well the title of this topic is "Religious groups engaged militarily in the ACW", because on August 16th,I was wondering if guys in the north would have enlisted en masse in the army before the introduction of conscription for religious reasons, because as the northern Protestant you spoke of could have wanted to free the slaves for religious reasons, because I rewrite it "For me a Christian should not have slaves because it is something that Christ would not have approved.".

And for religious reasons those in the south would have refused to enlist or desert at the first opportunity.

We do not know if Christ and Saint Paul tried to upset the existing political and social order (in any case Christ upset the existing religious order and we have seen and we still see the result today) because in any case there are only four "recognized" gospels and said to be canonical which nevertheless have not ceased to be retranslated centuries after centuries, the other gospels, not recognized, are said to be apocryphal, who had in them as testimonies?

When I write the word "Mammon" it is inadvertently, remember from now on that I think Mormon when I write Mammon.

Let's not forget the meeting between Jesus and the centurion, He said that he could still get into heaven, even if he was a soldier.
Considering the Jewish need for military service to the nation, I disagree with your assumption.

@TimePortal
I do not believe that Christ approved of any form of violence!

As for the relations between Christ and the Jews, we know how it ended and in any case as there are only four "recognized" and so-called canonical gospels which nevertheless have not ceased to be retranslated centuries after centuries, we will therefore never know all the real words and thoughts of Christ because the other gospels, not recognized, are said to be apocryphal.

Except for the occasional overturning of tables.

And when He told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword

For Confederate Jews here's an interesting take: link

Jesus supposedly said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Lincoln's corollary to that was: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."

Are we reading the same Bible? Its full of contradictions. On the one hand you have the Jubilee in Leviticus. On the other you have passages directing slaves to be faithful to their masters, such as the following from Ephesians: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ."

@doc mcb
Yes and what did he say to the one who cut off the ear of one of those who came to apprehend him?

@Bill N
Nowadays with rising anti-Semitism, I know some who would be happy to learn that there were Jews for the Confederacy…

I have already written it, there have been several successive translations and here is the result, I think that often what we read in the gospels is not always the word or the thought of Christ.

If only we could read the apocryphal gospels …

@donlowry
Jesus supposedly said, "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you".

Unstoppable!

As for Lincoln's corollary, it is valid for many rebels who, not having or not wanting slaves, still fought for the Confederacy.

Of course it's full of contradictions. It is not one book written by one author. It is a collection of many books, letters, etc., written over the course of hundreds of years in at least two different languages (Hebrew and Greek), addressed to different people or groups for different purposes.

@donlowry
Yes that's exactly it,but Christ would not have approved of slavery or the butchery that was the ACW.

God gives men the choice and there is no need to read the gospels to know what is good or bad, in fact the majority of Christians never stop thinking, saying and doing things that Christ would not have approved and yet they continue to go to church without any remorse, among Catholics in particular there is confession which makes things easier for them and which allows them an eternal restart, but among other Christians, I don't see how they do it?

^ This Thread has side tracked into THEOLOGY!!!

I don't think you can say that the majority of Christians go to church with no remorse for their sins. You cannot see into people's hearts. We are all sinners and sin every day. That is why we need a savior, who is Jesus Christ. He was perfect, we aren't and never will be. I go to church to confess my sins and ask for forgiveness, something I have in Christ. To me, the Gospels are the word of God, and I do not find contradictions. We do need a guide to tell us what is right and wrong, especially in the screwed-up world we live in today.

Sorry, Mahdi1ray, I had to reply and, yes, this has moved into Theology.

THEOLOGY has no reason to be in TMP.

Sorry about that.

^ Accepted. BTW I am neither a Jew nor a Muslim.

@mahdi1ray
Hallelujah -LOL-.

@Grattan54
Well, I think on the contrary that we can say that the majority of Christians have gone, are going and will continue to go to church without any remorse for their sins and no need to see into people's hearts to realize it.

I don't go to church anymore for that, I'm tired of hypocrites.

Because even if we are all sinners and sin every day, for some practicing, there are no limits.

Yes we need a savior, who is Jesus Christ and who is – because he is resurrected – perfect, because we are not and will never be.

For me, the Gospels should have been the word of God, but it is not Christ who wrote them and they have been translated and retranslated so much that we can no longer trust them.

I don't need a priest or someone else to know what is good and what is bad.

And no need for intermediaries between me and Christ, because I can imagine quite well what he would not have approved of.

@donlowry
It's just a little interlude…

^ @ hi EEE ya: I am a Traditional Christian Catholic "In Communion With Rome" and thus one of the "hypocrites" you decry!

In my Christian faith God inspired the Gospel writers and they are the exact word of God. I will also restate, you can not see into someone's heart. Who are you to judge if someone is repentant or not? Christianity is a world wide religion yet you know what the majority of Christian feel or believe in their hearts. Seem a bit omnipotent of you.

@mahdi1ray
So go confess LOL.

Well, I was and am not anymore and I am all the better for it, no common point between Christ and the Catholic Church "whatever its chapel", you just have to look at the history of the Catholic Church to understand it, but this is also valid for all Christians, who are not Catholic, who never stop thinking, saying and doing things that Christ would not have approved.

I have once at 800% and that's it, I'm not a robot.

Apart from that there were no "particular" religious regiments among the belligerents, on August 16 this seemed strange to me because I thought that the Americans of the 19th century were very "practicing".

@Grattan54
Given the mass of translations they have undergone for centuries, the Gospels are no longer the exact word of Christ.

And you too, who are you to judge me..?

Before you want to remove the speck that I have in my eye, remove the beam that you have in yours.

If you are Catholic, run to confession.LOL

I don't need to know what most Christians feel or believe in their hearts; I just need to hear what they say and see what they do to see it.

Apart from that there were no "particular" religious regiments among the belligerents, on August 16 this seemed strange to me because I thought that the Americans of the 19th century were very "practicing".