Introduction

[efstabs class=”yourcustomclass”]
[efstab title=”Metaphors of Slavery” active=”active”]

A few times throughout the sermon, Elliott uses the language and metaphors of slavery to describe the state of the Confederacy. For example, Elliott constantly compares the Southern people to the biblical people enslaved under Pharaoh, and describes the South as needing to “break the chains of prejudice and calumny” and describes the Confederate cause “as one of the links in the chain of his Providence.”

What are we to make of such language? At the time and place Elliott was speaking, nearly four million people were themselves literally enslaved, having actual, material chains placed upon them. Was Elliott really so obtuse as to not see the irony of his using the language of slavery? What does Elliott’s appropriation of such language reveal about him as a speaker, or about the Confederacy as an idea?

In this section, you will find a variety of authors who also utilize the language of slavery to describe their own situations. Excerpts from Joshua McCarter Simpson and Harriet Jacobs, as well as images from the American Anti-Slavery Society, show the material realities of chains for many people in the South. Bringing in Elliott’s sermon in combination with these materials raises discussion questions of when, if, and by who the language of slavery can be used, and how we must always be thinking about the cultural and historical context in which such language exists.

[/efstab]

[efstab title=”Experiences of War“]

The Battle of First Manassas, or the Battle of Bull Run, was the first major battle of the Civil War, and even though the Confederacy won the battle, both sides suffered significant losses and realized this war would not be resolved so quickly. Elliott, however, claims that men who died for the Confederacy, these “noble spirits,” should be honored and revered, as “Others may die upon the battle-field, but none can die so gloriously as they! Others may rise up and be baptized for the dead, but none can ever supplant her first martyrs in the admiration of their countrymen.” Elliott himself, however, did not experience battle.

How should we read Elliott’s descriptions of war? What effect did he intend to have with these descriptions, and what emotions or ideas did he mean to invoke?

In the attached readings, Emily Dickinson strikes a much different note when thinking about the young men who have died during the Civil War, and Stephen Crane provides a first person description of battle, which reads much differently than Elliott’s celebration. Bringing in Elliott’s sermon in combination with these materials raises questions over the formation and purpose of nationalist war rhetoric, and what the broader function of such rhetoric is intended to be.

[/efstab]

[efstab title=”Versions of History“]

Elliott sees the Confederacy’s victory in the battle as cause for celebration and Thanksgiving, as a great victory in need of “gratitude for so glorious a triumph.” And yet while Elliott maintains that “this conflict was not one of the ordinary and ever recurring struggles for independence, but that it wore many of the features of a sacred war,” Elliott’s version of the battle was not shared by the rest of the country, and is today remembered quite differently. The battle’s more popular name, the Battle of Bull Run, was how it was referred to by the Union Army, and how it is persists in our national and cultural memory.

What version of this battle does Elliott offer? In what ways are Elliott’s descriptions of the battle presented to serve some broader goal or purpose? Certainly, as a preacher Elliott wants to offer hope to his congregation, but what other feelings, thoughts, and beliefs is Elliott’s version of the battle meant to invoke for his audience?

In the attached materials, we see several different presentations of this battle. Herman Melville,The March Into Virginia, Ending in the First Manassas,” laments not the fallen Confederate soldiers – as Elliott does – but rather the thoughts of heroism which spurns the young Union soldiers on to their deaths. The painting of the battle presents a nation being trampled into the dirt, a starkly different vision of the effects of the battle than the glory Elliott claims it to have brought for national pride. When read alongside Elliott’s sermon, these materials highlight the ways that history itself is crafted to present a specific narrative, and to achieve certain results.

[/efstab]

[efstab title=”Usage of Religion“]

Several times throughout the sermon, Elliott describes the battle as part of a “sacred war,” and claims that the victory is proof that God is on the side of the Confederacy. Elliott says that “The victory is . . . an answer to prayer, and . . . [that] we can yet see enough in its circumstances to satisfy us of the presence of God.”

What function does the usage of religion serve in this sermon? Certainly, Elliott is a preacher, and this is a sermon, but how does Elliott selectively use religion so as to justify his own position?

In the attached readings, we see other authors of the antebellum era discussing religion for their own purposes. In the excerpts from Frederick Douglass, Douglass is critical of the particular type of religion Elliott invokes. Julia Ward Howe, in “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” shows the ways that members of the Union Army portrayed their cause as sacred and sanctioned by God, a contrast to Elliott’s sermon. Mark Twain, in “The War Prayer,” illustrates the ways religion is used in war to justify one’s own position, and questions whether or not God can really take sides in a war. Bringing in Elliott’s sermon in combination with these materials raises questions over the role, purpose, and function of religion in times of war.

[/efstab]
[/efstabs]


Student responses:

“If we don’t acknowledge [slavery], that this is part of our history, if we don’t read this literature, and we aren’t educated on the problems and where they come from, we will never be able to make progress as a society in general.”

“We often want to overlook the fact that a lot of human behavior is social conditioning. We’re not inherently born with these ideas of right and wrong; we’re conditioned to learn what those are. A lot of times [people] try to strip the ideology from an institution in history so they can implement it again.”

“[These texts] need to be taught and read [in] an atmosphere that looks at the implications of slavery and its environment and consequences.”