Mid-19th Century Religion

[ElizabethClark]

At member request, let's open up a polite, coherent, research-based discussion on historic religion in the context of the mid-19th century. If you have questions about how a particular sect might have handled something, or how a person of religious persuasion might be regarded in society, or fit into the larger social context, this would be a good place to ask.

Religion *can* be a touchy subject, but it doesn't need to be. Let's keep to these discussion ground rules, which are consistent with the AC Forum rules:

1: Keep it Historic. Religious dogma, tenets, and culture do change over time, and we're not interested in anything past 1866.

2: Keep it Neutral. We're discussing the past. Nothing that anyone did or didn't do in the mid-19th century has any bearing on your own personal faith today. It is entirely possible to have calm discussion of controversial historic religious aspects.

3: No Witnessing. This is not the thread for urging people toward your particular faith, or sharing faith/conversion stories. That would be "MODERN" religion... see Rule 1.

4: No Bashing. Yes, we may touch on unsavory aspects of mid-19th century religious observance (or lack thereof.) But since we're discussing history, not personal faith, this won't be a problem, right?

So, folks, keep it clean and civil and back up your thoughts with historic documentation. "I think they would have" won't work. :) If your comments cross the line from the rules, they will be edited or removed, to keep the focus of the discussion intact.

What shall we discuss first?

[Fiddlebum]

I'd like to know to what extent 19th century Americans were aware of Eastern religions. If anyone can point me to some sources I'd appreciate it very much.

Thanks,

Kim Caudell

[ElizabethClark]

Kim, any particular philosophy you want to look at? Godeys and Petersons did publish some good stories/articles/travelogues that incorporated "exotic" locales such as India and China, and those often include some cultural and religious characters in the narrative. Adding in foreign mission work undertaken by many US Christian religions, and the potential for at least a passing knowledge of the Far East expands.

However, I'm not hitting good keywords on Google Books today... which is frustrating. Lunch first, then Google.

[styler]

My 2 cents: Want to improve your impression? If you're portraying someone of a Protestant ilk memorize as much of the King James Version of the Bible as you can. Knowing and being able to quote the words will on its own bring you leaps and bounds above most portrayals out there.

The KJV was the most influential bit of literature in America in the 1860s. Religious beliefs aside, it was about as close to universally known as anything. While Catholics and such didn't read the thing, there were enough sayings and phrases in common usage taken from the KJV that they would have been familiar with passages from it.

Just my humble opinion, mind you.

[ElizabethClark]

Mr Tyler, would the "and such" after Catholics be referring to a specific set of non-Protestant sects? I can think of a few folks in the period who'd be familiar with the King James version, as either a holy text or historic text, but not be Protestant or Catholic: Mormons, Islamists, non-religious scholars or philosophers... Those are off the top of my head, but did you have others in mind that I've missed?

[nick19thind]

I'd like to know to what extent 19th century Americans were aware of Eastern religions. If anyone can point me to some sources I'd appreciate it very much.

Thanks,

Kim Caudell

The Chinese workers who built America's railways were Buddhists and Taoists.
A couple of years back they found the grave of one of these immigrants in a program on Discovery.

[ElizabethClark]

Nick, did the program happen to mention any percentages of Christianized Asians working the railways? Mission efforts with native populations and emigrant Asians in California, particularly, seem to have been pretty extensive in the middle of the century, based on summarizing a lot of reading on Gold Rush & westward migration topics.

[nick19thind]

No, it was just about this one discovery. The worker was buried with his pigtail (something to do with traditional Chinese religious beliefs), some charms and in a traditional jacket worn with denim trousers.
I can't remember the name of the program, it might have been something like "mummy autopsy" :confused:

[styler]

Actually, I was thinking of Jews. It may be arguable (in a period manner) concerning whether Unitarians, Universalists, Shakers, and Quakers were "Protestants." But certainly they, as well as Latter Day Saints (Mormons; much less accepted as Protestants in the 1860s than the previously mentioned groups, but, then, where did converts to that church come from?), would all know from use the KJV Bible (in addition to the Book of Mormon in the Saints' case).

I would like to make a clarification to my first post. Not everyone alive in America in the early 1860s was a scholar. Not everyone could read the Bible or had the Bible read to them. Not everyone went to church - some because of lack of opportunity, but many by choice. But nearly everyone heard or used some phrase or saying that came from the Bible, essentially the King James Version. As an example, in another forum I pointed out that the phrase "separating the wheat from the chaff" isn't just an old agricultural saying, it's also a biblically-based metaphor (Matthew 3:12, Luke 3:17, probably mixed with the sheep and goats from Matthew 25:31-33).

[ElizabethClark]

Good point on the Biblical metaphors; those, and many classical literature references do tend to pepper mid-century vocabulary, and even if a person was not well-versed in the originating texts themselves, they would be familiar with the "pop culture" phrase itself.

On Mormons (LDS, Saints, Mormonites... lots of appropriate period terms), I've not found much from mid-century from the Mormons themselves to point toward them considering themselves Protestant. Rather, they believed their church to be a full restoration of the Early Church, not a protestant reformation of any kind. The line of the church also cannot be traced to Reformation sources... it starts with Joseph Smith, rather than any of the great Reformationists. So, from period information, I'd have to opine that the Mormons were not, in fact, Protestants, nor were they looking to be called or accepted as Protestants. Christian, yes. Protestant/Catholic, no.

Eastern Religions: I grew up in a gold town, where the main strike was discovered in 1862, and by 1863, the tiny valley had a population of nearly 10,000, with a thriving Chinese population. There were small shrine niches included in the main, fortified social building down in "China Town", which remained in place even during the long closure of the building once the boom was over. While the Chinese were heavily persecuted in this particular area, local whites respected some of the permanent residents who operated one of the few medical services (Chinese herbs and alcohol, mostly).

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Just an aside...
The Chinese queue (or later derogatory "pigtail") was not religious. It was political.

When the Manchu invaded Han China in the early 17th century, and ended the Ming Dynasty to establish their own Qing Dynasty (1644-1912), "Queue Orders" were issued forcing the conquered Han males to shave the front of their heads and wear the queue as did the Manchu.
This was a combination of subjugation, but it also tended to identify those rebelling or resisting Manchu rule. In a genocide move, hundreds of thousands of men were executed for not converting to the "new hair style," as the penalty was death by beheading.

Perhaps not so oddly enough, what was initially subjugation, oppression, and enforced style in hair and clothing, became "assimilated" as "Chinese" male fashion/dress. However, when the Chinese Republic ended the Qing Dynasty in 1912, the fashion was reveresed- the cutting of the queue and wearing of short hair was seen as a distancing and rejecting of the old empire. (But some few continued to wear the queue for a few years because of entrenched tradition.)

Curt

[yankeecav]

Keep in mind that while many people may not have been churchgoers a large number of those people that received instruction from public schools or used the same books in studies at home would have been exposed to biblical stories and contemporary moral stories using biblical principles.

I base this assertion on the various books used in american schools. The New England Primer was used for nearly 100 years until about the beginning of the 19th century. It was strongly oriented with the bible.

The NEP was then replaced in large part with Noah Websters The American Spelling Book. This book also had a strong biblical influence.

In the mid-1830s a very poular series called McGuffeys Reader (yes you have all heard of them) began to see widespread use.

My point is that while many may not go to church there is still a good chance that they would have had some exposure to biblical principles/morals.

I look forward to more dicscussion of this topic.

[Ga Boy]

Ladies and Gentlemen
One book that has given me quite about of insight on the religious world of the Civil war soldier and civilian is "While God is Marching on the religious world of the civil war soldiers." Author is Steven E. Woodworth. Book is printed by Unversity of Kansas press. I think this will give you a very good idea of what part religion played in the soldiers life and how he looked at the world he lived in.

Jim Boone
47th Ga. V.I.

[amity]

Here is some info on the religious demography of U.S. in 1850-60:

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/h75rel.htm

The only religions thought "statistically significant" by whoever drew up this series of maps seem to be those we might have guessed, and no further denominational breakdowns are available on this website. The value of these maps is that it does show regional predominance of various denominations by county, albeit in a very cumbersome way.

Still looking, though. I know I have seen census data reprinted in DeBow's that listed, for example, the breakdown of specific types of baptist and other denominations across the U.S. I did numerous searches on Making of America and could not find it, though.

[styler]

Try this link: 1860 Census data at UVA (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860#CHURCHES).

[amity]

Thanks, Mr. Tyler. I did see that, but it is not what I meant, quite. The chart in DeBow's had really specific breakdowns like "General Baptist" versus "Adventist" and "Campbellite" versus "Disciples." I am posting this hoping someone out there will say "Oh, yeah! I remember that." I think it was originally Mrs. Trent who posted a link a year or two ago. It was useful in part because it reflected a period understanding of denominationalism.

[NoahBriggs]

Acouple of good secondary source surveys, left over from my college course "Introduction to American Religious Thought":

Marsden, George M. Religion and American Culture. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1990.

Decent intro to the history of Religion in the US, from the first landings at Provincetown/Plymouth and Jamestown to the present day. Takes a look at different denominations and their impact on social programs and so on.

Bruce, Jr., Dickson D. And They All Sang Halleujah - Plain-Folk Camp Meeting Religion, 1800-1845. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 1974.

What it says, and a good survey of the Southern Frontier and the impact of religion. Good read for Confederate reenactors in the Stonewall Brigade.

I think I or someone else mentioned Jewry In the Civil War, which was a 1950s survey. Unfortunately the author was obsessed with numbers and statistics. Thus I could not wade past the first chapter to see if it actually discussed Judaism.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?page=browse&cc=moa&c=moa

That's the link on MOA to search by subject. That's the Primary Source Gold Mine and Mother Lode of Knowledge right there. I went through the list by title, myself and saved the ones that interested me most. A good many are on religion - sermons, analyses, interpretations, &c. Very good to help you get into a period mindset on your chosen topic and be able to argue your historic position with proper rhetoric, as opposed to devolving into Jerry Springer-style screaming matches and ad hominen attacks (aka "flame wars" in current internet jargon). Read anything by Alcott - Louisa May's brother, I think, who had opinions on a lot of topics and ladeled them out heavy in his sermons. Then, as now, discussions of current politics were thinly camouflaged under religious topic.

Read on, MacDuff.

[ElizabethClark]

Slight topic morph--but reading era-appropriate sermons for one's specific denomination is a MUST in my mind for anyone planning to do preaching in a historic setting. Preaching styles in various sects do evolve over time... I know for my own faith, modern adherents would not really recognize or be comfortable with the mid-century preaching styles and meeting formats most common for "us". The best historic religious experiences I've had have been in settings where the preacher/minister was extremely well-versed in period sermonizing for his denomination, and could either deliver an actual historic sermon with excellent elocution, or copy the style and content very well.

[Spinster]

The effects of close living quarters, and battle stress cannot be denied----this is only one of many such examples. From the diary of Southern Methodist chaplain John B. McFerrin

The Federals occupied Chattanooga , and for weeks the two armies were in full view of each other. All along the foot of Missionary Ridge we preached almost every night to crowded assemblies, and many precious souls were brought to God. After the battle of Missionary Ridge the Confederate army retreated and went into winter quarters at Dalton, Georgia. During these many months, the chaplains and missionaries were at work--preaching, visiting the sick, and distributing Bibles, tracts, and religious newspapers. There was preaching in Dalton every night but four, for four months; and in camps all around the city, preaching and prayer meetings occurred every night. The soliders erected stands, improvised seats, and even built log churches, where they worshiped God in spirit and in truth. The result was that thousands were happily converted and were prepared for the future that awaited them. Officers and men alike were brought under religious influence. In all my life, perhaps, I never witnessed more displays of God's power in the awakening and conversion of sinners than in these protacted meetings during the winter and spring of 1863-64.

[Spinster]

Slight topic morph--but reading era-appropriate sermons for one's specific denomination is a MUST in my mind for anyone planning to do preaching in a historic setting. Preaching styles in various sects do evolve over time... I know for my own faith, modern adherents would not really recognize or be comfortable with the mid-century preaching styles and meeting formats most common for "us". The best historic religious experiences I've had have been in settings where the preacher/minister was extremely well-versed in period sermonizing for his denomination, and could either deliver an actual historic sermon with excellent elocution, or copy the style and content very well.


Most definitely---the modern United Methodist would not recognize the "Shouting Methodist" of the mid-19th century, either in worship style or in theology.

In trying to put together a period worship service, many folks ignore a truth of the time---the great preachers of the period were published--their sermons were bound works that other preachers purchased, and read aloud to their congregations. This was especially true in those denominations that emphasized the importance of an educated clergy. Those sermons are still accessible and readable, and give great insight into the public and spiritual thought of the time.

[hiplainsyank]

A few generalitites. Many Protestant denominations were part of smaller regional organizations rather than national ones. What became the large national denominations we have today were a product of later generations. That doesn't mean they didn't interact with each other, just more loosely than the large, well organized structures of today.

At the same time, nearly every Protestant denomination had sundered ties with their neighbors to the south or north over the issue of slavery. This was a huge issue among many of the Protestant associations in the 1840s-1850s.

[styler]

What became the large national denominations we have today were a product of later generations.

Just to speak to this point: that's not to say there were no "national" churches in the 1860s. The Methodist Episcopal Church was a large antebellum denomination. It suffered a small national schism when the Methodist Protestants formed in 1828. ,had a schism in northeast when the Wesleyan Methodists left, split in to ME and MES churches soon after, and the ME church had to deal with yet another schism when the Free Methodists were formed. Yet I'd have to say that the old "united" ME church was large and the ME and MES on their own at the time of the war were nothing to sneeze at.

Then there was the old Presbyterian Church U.S.A. which had a split into New and Old Schools in the late '30s. While the split had some sectionalism and regionalism the synods were nationally associated with like synods until the war. For examples that counter strict sectionalism and speak to the national connections: the more liberal New School churches tended to be in the north, and Old School south (Stonewall Jackson was an O.S. adherent). But one of the large churches in, I believe, Charleston, S.C., was N.S., while Princeton was an O.S. pillar. I believe "Presbyterians" numbered second to "Methodists" in the 1860 census.

Certainly, absolutely, the smaller denominations deserve attention, but be careful of ignoring the 500-pound gorillas that were around at the time.

[Fiddlebum]

I was mostly interested in knowing how aware people were of Buddhism and Hinduism. I did find out that the first Buddhist temple in the US was built in the 1850s in California, which makes sense. The first Hindu temple didn't come along till the early 1900s.

But. . . we'd had trade & commercial ties with the East for a loooong time, so I'm just curious about who might have been exposed to Eastern religions.


Kim Caudell

[amity]

Kim, I have the impression that educated people were at least aware of the existence of religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, but my quick impression of the sources I saw while looking for info on demographics inclined me to think that even those with education were not very knowledgeable. The articles I found in DeBow's and Ladies' Repository, for example, looked way off the mark in many respects. And they certainly weren't PC, but what did we expect? You might go to websites with primary sources like Making of America and search on period terms like "Hindoo" and see what turns up.

As far as popular culture goes, I have only references to sideshow acts, etc., to judge by. One or two Muslims brought over to tend to the Camel Corps here, hundreds of Chinese living in relative cultural isolation there, etc. Seems to have been a sea of ignorance among white Americans of all classes, and few ordinary people ever had the chance to actually "meet one." The only arena I can think of where there seems to have been much cultural connection between religions was with African religion in those places where it still survived in some form, like among the Gullah for example. And we know a bit more about what that cultural connection consisted of. Nonetheless, even whites in those areas had some actual familiarity with African religious belief and practice in that hybrid form. Other than that, I can't think of another instance where anything showing real insight seems to have survived.

I know we are far into the land of supposition here, but since no one is coming up with primary source documents to help you, I might as well throw that idea out.

[KarinTimour]

Dear Noah:

Thank you for the secondary resources, will scope them out as time permits.

You wrote: Read anything by Alcott - Louisa May's brother, I think, who had opinions on a lot of topics and ladeled them out heavy in his sermons. Then, as now, discussions of current politics were thinly camouflaged under religious topic.

Louisa May Alcott had no brothers -- her father, Bronson Alcott was a philosopher and educator, but not a minister. He did give "talks" and "conversations" which were published, were listened to by many people and might be what you meant. The only other possible Alcott might have been Frederick, who was born as Louisa May's nephew, but was adopted by her when he was an a.dult so as to be her literary executor and keep track of renewing the copyrights on her books, so that they could support several different family members. I don't know that Frederick was a minister or ever was published, so it's probably Bronson you're thinking of here....

BTW, another period book that we should all be very familiar with is "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan. My impression is that three books were most likely to be found in most households -- The Protestant Bible, Pilgrim's Progress and the works of Shakespear. But again, it goes back to what impression you're protraying.

Very enjoyable discussion, am learning a lot,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Come see me this Remembrance Day at C.J. Daley's store.
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com
Read on, MacDuff.[/QUOTE]

[Becky Morgan]

Whites may have seen African ritual, or surviving remnants thereof, but the surviving accounts seem so patronizing and scornful to a 2007 eye that it is sometimes hard to tell what's going on. I'll have to dig through a couple of local memoirs. Missionaries were also fond of bringing back stories from their travels, but judging by their published remarks in the Wheeling Intelligencer and other local papers, they were hardly objective (and I wouldn't expect them to be.) In other words, it doesn't seem the average person would know a Hindu from a Sikh from a Muslim if they were all Indian.

Speaking of Indians, don't forget us :D The average person seems not to have made any distinction among native Americans. I'd have to look better at Schoolcraft and company, but in the popular press, at least, the Indians are either Christian or "heathen". We can understand why the folks weren't fond of letting whites watch ceremonies, and in some cases even talking about them is not encouraged even today. It's easy to see how a mid-19th century white would get odd ideas about what was going on in the few vague glimpses he or she got.

[Fiddlebum]

Thanks Terre --- that's actually very helpful.

Kim Caudell

[johnf1862]

This has been in the back of my head for a while... Darwin's "The origin of Species".

Being that it was first published in 1859 in England, would there really have been much of an effect on the everyday American citizen during the war?

[amity]

It seems it took awhile for the lines to be drawn on The Origin of Species. It was not universally seen as "hostile to religion" for a few years. It was often presented in something like Deistic terms, as an examination of God's laws at working in nature.

Also, I am not sure how much of an immediate effect it had in the U.S. Most of the initial debate seems to have taken place among scholars and clerics in England, and did not gain widespread public attention even there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_Darwin%27s_theory

See other online sources listed at bottom.

BTW, I am not even sure when The Origin of Species first became available in the U.S. The first editions in England were only of a couple thousand copies apiece, were quite expensive, and sold mainly to scholars of course. The fourth edition was larger, but did not come out until after the war. The term "evolution" in reference to Darwin's theories was not coined until 1870s, so shouldn't be used in a CW context. The original title was _ON the Origin of Species_ by the way.

Does anyone have any U.S. press coverage of Origin to report?

[Robert A Mosher]

First, allow me to offer my thanks to everyone for an outstanding discussion!

Coincidentally, I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God" and found her chapter on "Christians: Brave New World (1492-1870)" to be very informative and responsive to many of the questions raised in this discussion. However, the admonition about learning the period vocabulary is good advice and particularly reading period sermons. There is a good deal of such material available via Google Books.

My own situation has made the general topic one of interest because in my role as a civilian journalist from Boston I am a Congregationalist and abolitionist - while as a musket-toting private soldier I am a Protestant Ulsterman married to a Catholic (in a civil ceremony in a small place called Gretna Green in Scotland while on the way to America via a ship from Liverpool)

There was an excellent discussion almost some time ago that I recall tracked down a positive period reference to Mohammadism as originating with an article in a period anthology of essays, so they were aware of Islam (even if only through period romances such as "Ivanhoe" and other books about the Crusades, Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, etc.). Historians have also identified an undetermined population of Chinese who had been adopted into seafaring/trading families from the U.S. Atlantic coast cities by sea captains visiting China ports. One can only assume that such adoptees were raised as Christians if they were not already Christians. Such individuals are often hard to track because of the difficulty of determining the ethnicitiy of someone named "Lee" for example or because the bore "Christian" or Western names.

Robert A. Mosher

[Hank Trent]

It seems it took awhile for the lines to be drawn on The Origin of Species. It was not necessarily seen as "hostile to religion" for some years.

That fits with what I've found on the subject also.

Here's a bit of trivia, though. The idea of men being descended from apes was kicking around decades before Origin of the Species, let alone Descent of Man. Darwin's work was more about how it happened, than the fact that it happened.

Several writers, who have pleased themselves with describing what they call a regular gradation or chain of beings, represented man only as a superior kind of monkey; and place the unfortunate African as the connecting link between the superior races of mankind and the orang-ou-tang; they deny, in short, that he is generically distinguished from monkeys. Such an opinion might reasonably be expected from the slave-merchant who traffics in human blood, and from a West Indian Negro driver, who uses his fellow-creature worse than brutes; but we should not think of finding it defended by the natural historian, and we shall not hesitate to assert, that it is as false philosophically, as the moral and political consequences, to which it would lead, are shocking and detestable. http://books.google.com/books?id=AesIk8M0kNYC&pg=PT212

That strangely anachronistic-sounding passage is from the British Encyclopedia, 1809!

The name most associated with pre-Darwin origin of species was Lamarck, now not much more than a humorous footnote in discussions of evolution, for proposing the idea that giraffes developed long necks by stretching upward, then passing that acquired trait to their offspring. At the time, though, Lamarck was the best thing going, and he was closer to being right than anything else being proposed.

But as Terre said, there just didn't seem to be a general science vs. religion outcry about any of it, the way there would be in the 1870s and beyond. In fact, overall, there seemed to be more of a sense that science worked hand-in-hand with religion to reveal what god had designed.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[NoahBriggs]

Personally I enjoy one of the greatest ironies - the beginnings of the science of genetics is credited to an Austiran monk, Gregor Mendel, who took the time to observe and mix pea plants in order to trace their inherited features in 1864.

[amity]

Yes, the British were lightyears ahead of the U.S. in thinking about "the family of man." The early hymnists I love to read about were part of a large circle centered around Selina, Countess of Huntingdon, who though a slave owner herself largely funded Olaudah Equiano's first published accounts of slavery, plus works by Phyllis Wheatley and others. John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, was a former slaver who made a large impact in British thinking about slavery and race. But we are way out of our time period, mid-1700s! Too bad these people weren't more widely read in the U.S. in that era.

[ElizabethClark]

Looking at that early background informed the thinkers of the 1800s, though, so I'd consider them on-topic.

[Rev]

As a result of my job, a minister, I find this a fascinating subject. In school it is an area that I tried to focus my studies on in history classes when I could. I will try to find some of the bibliographies which I compiled all those years ago. They contained some excellent references.

In my opinion, the impact of religious view upon the period is one of the most overlooked aspects of the mid-nineteenth century in the LH/Reenacting world. The main two theological views of Christian salvation helped to form two very different societies and played a role in the secession of the South.

I've only scanned this thread, but here are some observations:

John Newton: He was actually well known among the clergy of the period. Especially among the Reformed clergy.

Darwin: Had little influence except among higher academicians at the time of the War.

Islam: Americans were relatively aware of Islam and its impact upon history. It was a very rare thing, however, to know Muslims (Musselmans) in this hemisphere. From what I remember from my studies they were viewed as a backward, violent people.

Very interesting thread.

[Stu_Sac]

I would like to add a couple of thoughts to the discussion here. The original question posted to start this thread was a request to examine the context of religion in the mid-19th century. This is a very interesting question and one that I don’t think we honor well, in most of our impressions. I tend to believe this is one of those areas, where our current cultural assumptions, cross over into the impression we are trying to build. As we look at the period, there are several points we have to consider.

First, to a great extent religious practice in mid-19th Century America, was driven by regional, community and ethnic factors. Therefore, if we are looking at a specific impression, we need to consider the “home ground” of that impression. Also as a part of this discussion we also have to remember that, the Second Great Awakening ended in the 1830’s, which by age would put it common memory for some of us. This movement had a great impact on the on the overall penetration of religion into common life, both in the extent and degree that it touched members of society. Then building on some of the ideas germinated during this movement, the Third Great Awakening had just begun in the late 1850’s and in some ways interrupted by the Civil War. All of these societal factors would play into an individual’s practice of observance.

In a quick glance, the 1860 census lists 29 separate sects (denomination) and a thirtieth grouping of “Minor Sects.” As we look at the listing here, I have to note that the various types of Baptists, account for seven entries on this list, followed by the Presbyterians with four. The largest unique reporting group appears to be the Methodists, both in terms of numbers and reported property value. This is followed by the aggregate totals for the Baptists and Presbyterians, each of whom appears to have totals about 2/3’s that of the Methodists. The Roman Catholic totals look to be considerably smaller, about 1/5 the values recorded by the Methodists. One other interesting point to note in looking at this list, is that the Shakers are specifically listed and the Mormons are not. Again, I have to stress that not all of these groups were present in each community or area in the 1860s.

With reference to the KJV, I would argue slightly differently. I will grant that given the American cultural heritage 1860’s, it may have been the most widely distributed version of the bible. However, it was not universal in use. The use of the KJV is only assumable in those churches, of English heritage. Churches coming from other traditions, especially if serving first generation congregations, would tend to use other bible versions. Then in terms of regular practice, many sects have supplemental books, used to order the service and therefore, make up an integral part of the unique practice of that group. For example, the Protestant Episcopal Church has the Book of Common Prayer, which provides framework for all forms of worship, within that church. (I will note that the correct BCP version for our period is the 1845 Standard Edition.)

Off the top of my head this morning, I know that at least three of these denominations had national convocations, by the time of the Civil War. These are the Methodists, Presbyterian, and the Protestant Episcopal. All of these groups splintered to one degree or another just before the Civil War, along north/south regional lines. So clearly, there were some national structures in place by the Civil War period.

The daunting thing is that this is just starting point, to consider this question. I might also suggest While God Is Marching On, The Religious World of Civil War Solders by Steven Woodworth; Univ. of Kansas Press 2001, as an interesting book to consider as this questions is examined. While this book focuses mainly on the military experience, there are some touch points to the society as a whole.

I am looking forward to seeing this thread develop further.

Stu Howe

[styler]

The use of the KJV is only assumable in those churches, of English heritage.

Excellent point. Germans, for example, were one of the largest immigrant groups. I believe at the time of the Civil War the majority of German immigrants were protestant rather than Roman Catholic, mostly Lutheran. The Seminary in Gettysburg was Lutheran. There were also Lutheran churches associated with Scandanavian immigrants, but they were fewer and further between - much more related to specific communities.

Link to page with Protestant Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcp.htm) Note the BCP of the Confederacy.

I should also add that in an 1855 enumeration Baptists outnumbered Presbyterians about 2:1. The source is attributed to Robert Baird's "State and Prospect of Religion in America." London, 1855. While that work of his is not found on Google Books (a good source for primary resources you'll run across in footnotes), others are, including "The Progress and Prospects of Christianity in the United States. (http://books.google.com/books?id=orJJGq7_gT8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=robert+baird)" London, 1851. A very interesting read! When I have the opportunity I'll transcribe the numbers from his later work.

[Clsinclair]

One has only to read the obituaries during the Civil War compared to today. I have heard many times that the Bible Belt of the South was born because of the Civil War.

October 8, 1862 - Died at the residence of Henry Hancock, Esq., on the 17th day of Sept. 1862, Mrs. Sarah B., consort of H.J. Hancock, Esq., Clerk of the Court of Compy Pleas, for Lancaster District, after a lingering attack of Typhoid Pneumonia. The deceased was deprived at an early age in life (18) of both Mother and Father, and she at an early period of life connected herself with that branch of the Church known as the Associate Reformed Presbyterian, of which Church she lived and died a consistent member. The decased leaves a Husband and an infant Son, to mourn their loss; but from evidence upon her dying bed, their loss is her eternal gain.

*1st Lt. H.J. Hancock of the 17th SC was fighting the battle of South Mountain on September 17th. He would die on January 1, 1864 from Typhoid Pneumonia

April 22, 1863 - Departed this life on Friday, the 10th inst., Mary E. Hancock, daughter of B.R. and N.M. Hancock, aged 16 years 4 months and 10 days. Mary had been a member of the Morian Baptist church for three years and 6 months, in her last moments she professed to be in the full triumps of faith. . . She leaves behind a father and mother, four brothers and three sisters to mourn her loss.

* B.R. Hancock was a member of the 12th SC and his mother died the same year and his wife died in 1869. All of Typhoid Pneumonia.

Almost all the obituaries of the period in this area were religious in content.

Regards,

Claude Sinclair

[Mark B]

Would you have been able to identify on sight a protestant minister? Priests wear a collar and a vest most of the time and some Episcopalians and Presbyterians...was there a standard garb?

[jake.koch]

How much, if any trouble would have been caused in a regiment that had mixed Protestant and Catholic soldiers,for example an all immigrant German regiment. The ones I know of specifically, the 9th and 107th Ohio had men that had immigrated from every corner of Germany, so it might be safe to assume that there would be a mix of Protestants and Catholics. Does anyone know of that causing any trouble within units or know of any sources that might discuss it? I haven't read anything that would suggest it, but with some of the anti-Catholic politics of the time would that have been a big deal within a unit?

Jake Koch

[Spinster]

No such garment was common throughout the various Protestant denominations. For the more mainline Protestants--Methodists, Brethern, Presbyterian, a certain conservative/reserved demeanour and conservative style of dress would be more common.

For those of Methodist persuasion, there are accounts which remark that while the circuit riding preacher traveled with a trunk as would any educated gentleman, it was filled with books instead of clothing.

Protestants, by the very nature of their theological underpinnings, tended not to wear religious symbols on their clothing. A well worn Bible or hymnody might be close at hand, but with plain leather covers. For some denominations, the preacher wore black robes for Sunday Services, but even this symbol was utilized in only a few denominations.