The History Guru

American Providential History

American history is, in the view of some, not the same as the history of any other nation. Instead, American history is the history of Providence. It is the history of how the divine hand has interacted with the human element to create a nation that is, in many ways, unique among the nations of the world. As such, its history is also unique among the history of the nations. In this view, American history is really American providential history; it’s the story of God’s interaction with humanity.

American providential history focuses on the unique elements in American history in which human beings have interacted with the divine. As such, it begins with a study of the early American settlers. These settlers, in many cases, came to America from Europe for religious reasons. In some instances, they were persecuted for their religious beliefs, such as was the case with the Pilgrims. In other instances, people came to America for missionary purposes - they hoped to spread Christianity to the native people of America.

From there, people interested in American providential history focus on the amazing events that occurred during the nation’s founding. They look at movements like the Great Awakening, which had a significant impact on the religious views of the colonists. In many ways, it was this Great Awakening that was responsible for the political spirit of independence that ultimately led to the creation of the United States.

The interaction of the Divine with America doesn’t stop there, however. American providential history looks at the subsequent events that have occurred, as well. For example, the struggle over slavery is viewed as God’s working in society to make sure that the God-given rights of life and liberty are protected for all people, not just the privileged few. A providential view of American history also sees America as a unique country in the eyes of God. It views America as a “city on a hill” that serves as a model for the rest of the world when it com
es to liberty and freedom.

Finally, American providential history doesn’t try to gloss over the bad events in the American story. Mistakes that have been made along the way are seen, however, not as God’s plan for America, but rather the result of human weakness and human frailty. These mistakes don’t mean that Providence hasn’t been involved in American history, rather that the story of American history is the story of God’s purposes and humanity’s responses.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Rise of the Abolitionist Movement as a Cause of the Civil War

In many ways, it’s possible to understand the rise of the abolitionist movement as a cause of the Civil War. The abolitionist movement was radical not only in its aims, but it was radical in its methods, as well. The movement had as its goal nothing short of the immediate and instantaneous ending of slavery. While the goals of the abolitionist movement may have been noble, it was ironically this movement that is largely responsible for the bloody conflict of the American Civil War.

To understand how the rise of the abolitionist movement can be seen as a cause of the Civil War, it’s important to understand how the abolitionist movement was different in its aims. For decades, since the founding of the United States and even going back to colonial times, there had been a strong antislavery movement in the country. While it was centered in the North, there were many people opposed to slavery in the Southern states, as well.

This antislavery movement sought to end slavery legally and legitimately, through the course of law. They were strong proponents of legislation that would stop the expansion of slavery, for example. There were those in the antislavery movement that proposed legislation that would actually purchase the freedom of slaves, as had happened in Europe. This sort of solution would have ended slavery, but done it without the violence and death that the Civil War brought.

In contrast, the abolitionist movement sought to end slavery by any means necessary. So, famous abolitionist John Brown resorted to theft, and to attacks on federal officers, in his effort to end slavery. The radical abolitionists had no interested in ending slavery in a peaceful or legal way. They wanted to end slavery at the point of the bayonet.

Much has been written in regard to Abraham Lincoln and his connection to the abolitionist movement. At the time of Lincoln’s election, there were many people in the south who recognized that the newly-formed Republican part was, in many was, the party of abolition. While there were some Republicans who would have preferred to end slavery legally, the party platform called for the immediate eradication of slavery.

It is Lincoln’s abolitionist position, or at least the theory that he was beholden to abolitionists for his election, that led the South to secede. They believed (correctly) that Lincoln would try to forcibly end slavery - which he did with the Emancipation Proclamation. Indeed it is the Emancipation Proclamation that demonstrates what it was the South feared - that the abolitionist movement would overtake the presidency.

Posted in American Civil War | 4 Comments »

Civil War Reenactors and Race: A Review of Confederates in the Attic

photo credit: pcopros

(This is a long-overdue book review for me.  I trust that, even if you’ve read and forgotten Confederates in the Attic, you’ll bear with me as I dredge up old bones!)

Tony Horowitz, in the 1999 book, Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War, chronicles time spent amount modern-day history enthusiasts with a penchant for dressing up like Johnny Reb.  Horowitz, in this book, chronicles time spent among Civil War reenactors;  particularly, Civil War reenactors who reenact on the Confederate side.

By his own admission, Horowitz is fascinated with Confederate history.  He writes about painting a mural of Pickett’s charge on the ceiling of his attic as a small boy, and about looking at books on the Confederacy with his father.  Confederates is, in part, an attempt at introspection.

photo credit: pcopros

I think this is where Confederates fails.  Horowitz, in attempting to examine an obsession that is similar in some ways but vastly different in principle from his own.  Horowitz is a Northerner, and takes a Northerner’s view of the Southern Life.  The fact is, however, that it really is difficult to do this.  Horowitz, while he does reach some degree of objectivity, seems to be projecting either his own biases or the biases of those around him onto the reenactors.  In addition, the implicit conclusion is that those who hold the Confederacy dear do so for racist reasons.  I think that this is more than a little bit insulting, and it misses the point that race isn’t the be-all and end-all of history.  Whatever Horowitz may be as a journalist and pundit, he misses something important here in terms of the history.

Still, Confederates is worth the read, if only to be shocked and amazed by some of the more bizarre practices that Horowitz chronicles.

Selected reading:

Posted in American Civil War, historiography | 1 Comment »