Religion and the Confederacy

samcster94

Banned
How religious do you think a Confederacy that survived would have been??? Given they used God as an argument for how they kept black people in chains, them being super religious makes perfect sense.
 

Zwinglian

Banned
The confederate constitution still had the establishment clause and freedom of religion, it was pretty similar to the American constitution, so it would still have separation of church and state.
 

Marc

Donor
Southern Churches were, barring a few very rare exceptions, either culpable or complicit in the horror of slavery.

"...slavery has set the seal of a complicit , guilty silence upon the most orthodox pulpits and the saintliest tongues..."

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

If they had been true to their faith, the South would have had and resolved their existential crisis back during the Great Awakening in the 18th century. And would have become a finer, decent place and people.
 
It might be LESS religious than it currently is. No Southern state was settled for religious reasons and it was a more nominal institution at the time. The turmoil and economic hardship the region went through in the aftermath of the Civil War is part of what drove them into the depths of superstition that they're in. A lot of the more virulent strains of christianity also came in from elsewhere with few homegrown movements. Restricted movement between the countries could help alleviate some of that.

That said: the greatest likelihood is that an independent CSA would still have gone through severe economic hardship postwar and the religiosity of the population may be the same as now without the same oversight by saner states keeping it from going off the deep end into theocracy.
 
Interesting question, though I'll have to generally agree with the OP: the South was by no means a relative secular paradise, even in the earliest years post-Revolution.

It might be LESS religious than it currently is. No Southern state was settled for religious reasons and it was a more nominal institution at the time. The turmoil and economic hardship the region went through in the aftermath of the Civil War is part of what drove them into the depths of superstition that they're in.

It might have been more nominal in certain areas earlier on, perhaps, but even that is honestly questionable. Granted, it certainly is true that more fanatical religiousity did get doubled down on significantly in the post-bellum era, but otherwise, it was a notable(if not always dominant. But hardly absent) phenomenon-even amongst the elite-and it began to really take off as early as circa 1830, so the conditions were already there for some time.

That said: the greatest likelihood is that an independent CSA would still have gone through severe economic hardship postwar and the religiosity of the population may be the same as now without the same oversight by saner states keeping it from going off the deep end into theocracy.

This I generally agree with, though, especially since slavery would likely have survived for as long as the economy could function with it-the defense of the booming plantation economy was, after all, the predominant reason for increase in devout religiousity in the South from about 1830 onwards.

The confederate constitution still had the establishment clause and freedom of religion, it was pretty similar to the American constitution, so it would still have separation of church and state.

True, but it's honestly not that difficult to see that particular clause done away with in a lot of ATL CSAs, or even omitted altogether with a pre-1860 POD, especially if, say, anti-Catholicism becomes a bigger thing down there(and I can't see why it couldn't).
 
the defense of the booming plantation economy was, after all, the predominant reason for increase in devout religiousity in the South from about 1830 onwards.

I thoroughly disagree with this. The majority of Southerners didn't own slaves and most were in relative isolation living as subsistence farmers. Some so isolated they may never even see a slave but a few times in their lives (much of the inland South having only been settled for a few decades at that point). These people had very little interaction with, and even less reason to care about, "the booming plantation economy". Yet over time they became the most devout. The primary initial reason for their religiosity was the hardships they faced and the idea that things would be better in the afterlife. Repeat that enough and when you reach a certain population peer pressure will reinforce the notion. It's the same thing that motivates most people to adopt any given superstition at any point in human history. I certainly don't contest that biblical passages were used (& used often) to justify slavery. I absolutely contest the unverifiable statement that it was such a motivating method for those people to join or become increasingly religious. In fact, many of the most religious (such as the Quakers in the Southern Appalachians) were abolitionists.

To TLDR it: people become religious because stuff sucks and they want to believe their suffering is worth something or because they want to belong in a community that already believes a given thing... not because they want to screw over some people they've never met.
 

Md139115

Banned
I’m curious what the religious denominational makeup would look like in an independent slave-owning Confederacy. The Baptists has already split into Northern and Southern conferences pre-war, would any of the other Protestant denominations also split? I would think the Episcopalians would have to at some point. And what of the Catholics? Traditionally the local bishops in the South quietly nodded in support of slavery (with those in the North violently opposed), but how long would Rome allow that to continue before putting its foot down?
 
And what of the Catholics? Traditionally the local bishops in the South quietly nodded in support of slavery (with those in the North violently opposed), but how long would Rome allow that to continue before putting its foot down?

Gregory XVI has already condemned chattel slavery in 1839, and the Bishop of Charleston scored a 10/10 in mental gymnastics by saying that the condemnation only applied to large-scale slaveholding. OTOH, that bull made a distinction between the ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ deprivation of liberty, and Pius IX would endorse a teaching sent to Ethiopia in 1866 saying that certain forms of slavery practiced there were acceptable.

Based on those precedents and the greater Papal preoccupation with European affairs at the time, I don’t expect the Pope to seriously make an effort to correct Confederate Bishops until around 1890, when Leo XIII would condemn it in the context of his greater emphasis on Catholic social teaching.

As to what that means for the Confederate bishops... Depends on whether the Confederacy has enough Freedom of Speech that an abolitionist movement survives there in any form. If they do, then I would see most bishops obeying the Pope. Some, though, might break with Rome and form a local national Catholic Church, like the Old Catholics in Europe or the Polish National Catholic Church in the north.
 
Revivalism was a major influence on the Confederate Army throughout the conflict and led to noticeable changes within the Army as far as behavior goes; victory of Confederate arms would likely increase the effects. As far as Civilian life goes, the Establishment Clause was not viewed then as it is now; expect State Churches and explict Christian references within the Government of the Confederacy.
 
Depends on how the Constitution evolves. Prior to the Civil War, there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented a state from imposing an official religion or church or prohibiting free exercise within its own borders. In fact, at one point, the majority of states had official state churches, though I am not aware of any religions being prohibited and they may have been more like the Church of England, recognized but not enforced.

The 14th Amendment expanded that protection to the states, and one has to think that the USA would have passed it, CSA or no CSA, while the CSA probably wouldn’t have passed it right away. So while the CSA itself doesn’t have the ability to enforce a religion, the states do. So Virginia could establish a Baptist Church, North Carolina a Methodist one and South Carolina a Presbyterian one while Georgia could decide it doesn’t want to establish one. Meanwhile, Alabama could require its citizens to be Christians while Mississippi just bans Judaism or Islam or something, Louisiana could prohibit atheism while Texas could decide it doesn’t give a flaming shit and lets its people practice whatever religion they please. These are just examples, of course.

Realistically I picture CSA religion being a patchwork of different denominations, with some states collectively less religious than even the USA and others being practically theocracies.
 

Zwinglian

Banned
especially if, say, anti-Catholicism becomes a bigger thing down there(and I can't see why it couldn't).
Anti Catholicism would become less feasible of a political position I think because of how powerful and relevant Louisiana and New Orleans would be politically and economically in an independent CSA
 
And what'd these "certain forms" be? Punishment for crime? Even so...

“Among these conditions the most important ones are that the purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue or Catholic faith of the slave who is to be transferred to another's possession."

“Unjust” deprivation of liberty seems the main issue—so he might have been referring to debt slavery or penal slavery. Same issue that the 1839 condemnation raised—that slavery itself is only wrong if the slave was unjustly enslaved.

Now, define ‘just deprivation of liberty.’ I’m not aware of an infallible teaching on that, and it will vary—more will object to being born into slavery than to convict labor or conscription. Might vary from Pope to Pope—hence why I think Leo XIII would be the most strict about condemning it. His interest in the dignity of labor seems more likely to predispose him against chattel slavery.
 
Anti Catholicism would become less feasible of a political position I think because of how powerful and relevant Louisiana and New Orleans would be politically and economically in an independent CSA

This is perhaps a major point oft forgotten. Louisiana and New Orleans will be far far more important and dominating within this CS than it was/would be in the US.
 
True, but it's honestly not that difficult to see that particular clause done away with in a lot of ATL CSAs, or even omitted altogether with a pre-1860 POD, especially if, say, anti-Catholicism becomes a bigger thing down there(and I can't see why it couldn't).
Anti-Catholicism was mainly in response to Catholic immigration. A successful CSA would probably have even less immigration than OTL, so I don't see why anti-Catholicism would become a major factor.
 
Anti-Catholicism was mainly in response to Catholic immigration. A successful CSA would probably have even less immigration than OTL, so I don't see why anti-Catholicism would become a major factor.

There is also the factor of Louisiana, having a powerful effect on the CS. Generally, the attitude in the southern regions was a friendship to Catholicism as allies toward the ‘old colonial order’ of slavery and the racial hierarchies of the day. Louisiana most certainly represents this primordial colonial racial order and slavery culture more than perhaps any state in the southern region.

To assume that Louisiana can withstand a truly anti-catholic sentiment in the southern region is unlikely, especially once secession is made a precedent. Further, the upper class of the CS will continue its alliance and preference to the traditional order and hierarchies, instead of ceding ground to Protestant fanaticism. It also would be unfeasible when the primary city in the country is a bastion of catholic power and without the civil war, the flooding of missionaries from northern states to preach the gospel to newly freed slaves, will not exist, further increasing the power of Catholic dogmas.
 
Last edited:
Southern Churches were, barring a few very rare exceptions, either culpable or complicit in the horror of slavery.

"...slavery has set the seal of a complicit , guilty silence upon the most orthodox pulpits and the saintliest tongues..."

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

If they had been true to their faith, the South would have had and resolved their existential crisis back during the Great Awakening in the 18th century. And would have become a finer, decent place and people.
...I may be reading this incorrectly, but you state the scriptural basis of slavery, and then say that the south would have been better if people had been truer to their faith, which implies that slavery was a good thing...
 
For people who talk about how Louisiana would be a barrier to anti-Catholicism in the Confederacy: Millard Fillmore almost carried the state in 1856... (Granted, it probably wasn't mostly because of anti-Catholicism, but in any event almost half of Louisiana voters didn't regard the nativism and anti-Catholicism of the American Party as an obstacle to voting for its candidate.) The Know Nothing movement was short-lived in both the North and South, but it did briefly flourish in both sections--and for similar reasons:

"Southern Know Nothingism is usually interpreted by historians as simply a continuation of Whiggery, as a refuge for conservative Union-loving Whigs who were driven to it not by nativism, but by their fear of sectional agitation and the emerging Republican party in the North. Three aspects of the spread of Know Nothings among Southerners in 1854, however, refute that interpretation. First, many southern Whigs did not join the order, and when 1854 ended they still contemplated independent political action as Whigs in 1855. Second, Know Nothingism originally grew in the South for the same reasons it spread in the North—nativism, anti-Catholicism, and animosity toward unresponsive politicos—not because of conservative unionism. In January 1855, for example, ex-Governor William B. Campbell of Tennessee wrote, '1 have been astonished at the widespread feeling in favor of their principles—to wit, Native Americanism & anti-Catholicism—it takes everywhere.' Later that year, an apprehensive Mississippi Democrat complained that Know Nothingism 'has been eagerly embraced' because the order allowed 'men of the very meanest capacity ... to vote now according to birth and religion' and 'to inflict injury on what they hate.' Third, and most important, southern Democrats joined the order by the thousands in 1854. By November, Virginia's Alexander H. H. Stuart reported that 'many of the democrats who are tired of party dictation have joined the order.' 'I am sorry to see so many of our Democratic friends taking up with the 'Know Nothings,' ' complained Mississippi's Democratic Senator Albert Gallatin Brown in December, and three months later he moaned, 'Know Nothingism like the measles is catching'..." https://books.google.com/books?id=hMkYklGTY1MC&pg=PA856
 
@David T Sure, Louisiana also has its local powerbases that are not terribly affected by stalling Irish Catholic immigration. That is not a substantial anti catholic sympathy, what I was referring to would be some situation wherein Catholicism is actively hunted down or removed. This would not be possible in a CS that includes Louisiana and or the landed aristocracy of the southern region in any state.

Perhaps a populist movement in some eastern state fuses anti Catholicism with some sort of wealth distribution stratagem, say a religious version of Huey Long.
 
Top