Posted on 10/10/2014 7:30:16 AM PDT by Ditto
Strong belief in heaven likely was one of the factors that made the Civil War so long and so bloody, public historian Barbara Franco says.
“It made people more tolerant of death,” she explained in a recent telephone interview.
Dying in the 19th century was compared to passing through a curtain and reuniting with family members on the other side. That belief made soldiers and civilians more willing to accept the unprecedented number of casualties from disease and combat during the nation’s most catastrophic conflict, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Right. What about the thousands of wars prior to the US Civil War in which one side or the other simply gave up, or did not tolerate heavy casualties? Prior to the 1860s, most people around the world had a strong belief in God and the afterlife, and not every war prior to that was long and bloody.
Ping
Ever hear the statement "Religion is the opium of the masses"? (Karl Marx)
Same thing (or a slight variation thereof) here.
Regards,
More like the Confederates were willing to accept heavy casualities because they were fighting to protect their lands and homes for crikes sake. Sometimes it is what it is.
Personally I think stubborn pride played a larger part.
Then what explains the Union acceptance?
July 14, 1861
Camp Clark, Washington
My very dear Sarah:
The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write again, I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more . . .
I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans on the triumph of the Government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and sufferings of the Revolution. And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt . . .
Sarah my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me unresistibly on with all these chains to the battle field.
The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them for so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grown up to honorable manhood, around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me—perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar, that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battle field, it will whisper your name. Forgive my many faults and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often times been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness . . .
But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights . . . always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by. Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again . . .
This kind of thing happens when a writer is not deeply familiar with Christian belief, cherrypicks a tenet as if it is a previously overlooked anthropological gem, and positions Christian belief as a nineteeth-century oddity lost in the sands of time.
How beautiful.
That is a beautiful letter.
Yeh that’s why most of the soldiers who fought and died for the Confederacy didn’t even own slaves. Get a new theme.
The irony is that she never received that letter (but did receive other correspondence that was sent later).
It is, but it's an edited version. The full letter puts things in even more perspective: Ballou Letter
per Jason Coffman - August 2014:
Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist and a traitor. He appointed many of the German 48ers (fleeing Germany after a failed Marxist revolution) to his top Generals and Staff during the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War is a misnomer).
He himself had close ties to Karl Marx, and Marx himself was a supporter of the Union's cause in the war (because he understood that cause was to advance socialist ideals).
Lincoln ripped to shreds the Constitution, suspending Habeas Corpus (a Right, not a privilege, as is suggested in the Constitution [another example of Federalist victory]) and imprisoning those in the North who spoke out against his actions. He had hund reds of thousands of men slaughtered, both North and South and he forcefully (unethically, immorally and unlawfully if we are to lend any credence at all to the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America [know commonly as the Declaration of Independence]). He also created the Internal Revenue Service in 1862, which still exists today as the collection agents for the Federal Reserve System.
Here’s a news flash for the Friscan “scholar”
Dying IS a matter passing through a curtain and reuniting with family members on the other side.
If your name is written in the Book of Life.
An overpowering sense of moral righteousness. I am not saying that I agree with their righteousness, but it seems to be a motivator.
I have possessed a pallet full of bound Yankee newspapers encompassing the years 1860-1865. They were New York and Philly papers. Still have a few bound books. The propaganda is blatant, moralistic and righteously indignant.
As opposed to the southern newspapers of the period, in which the propaganda was timid and entirely accepting of the righteousness of the other side’s cause.
No disagreement here. However, I have not seen that righteousness in the South espoused in terms of invading and forcing their ideas on the whole of the Northern people. Have you seen it expressed thusly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.