Notes
Notes Introduction 1. Barney, Battleground for the Union, 99, 100; Benjamin M. Palmer, “Thanksgiving Day Sermon,” No vem ber 29, 1860, in Johnson, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer, 209, 210. Paul Harvey, in Freedom’s Coming, has cogently expressed the importance of religion in the numerous conflicting conceptions of south ern history and purpose entertained by south ern evangelicals—black and white—between 1861 and the 1960s. 2. To contend that these and other South ern Presbyterians united generally behind this south ern- biblicist apologia is not to suggest that their views on particular issues never diverged. For nuanced treatments of Palmer and Dabney see, respectively, Haynes, Noah’s Curse, chapters 7 and 8, and Lucas, Dabney. 3. See Blight, Race and Reunion; Fahs and Waugh, The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture; Brundage, The Southern Past; and Cobb, Away Down South. For a perceptive attempt to relate the effects of military defeat on south ern culture to the French after the Franco- Prussian War and the Germans after the First World War, see the first chapter of Schivelbusch, The Culture of Defeat. 4. One exception is Stephens, Science, Race, and Religion. 5. The phrase “storm of words” comes from the pen of Robert L. Dabney. See Dabney , Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth- Century, 202. For a concise overview of the trope “science and religion” see Roberts, “Science and Religion.” As discussed in the conclusion , Presbyterians in North ern Ireland did react adversely to evolution in the wake of John Tyndall’s announcement from a Belfast lectern in 1874 that scientists had replaced ministers as the only qualified spokesmen on the subject of cosmogony. The scale of this reaction, however, did not match that of the South ern Presbyterian response. See my discussion of this point in the Conclusion, which is informed by Livinstone’s essay “Situating Evangelical Responses to Evolution.” This essay also appears as “Science, Region , and Religion.” 6. The warfare thesis was advanced most notoriously by John William Draper in History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and by Andrew Dickson White in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Numerous historians have contributed needed complexity to this thesis or revised it altogether. The former would include Brooke, Science and Religion. The latter includes David C. Lindberg and 264 Notes to Pages 8–11 Ronald L. Numbers, “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science,” Church History 55 (1986): 338–54; Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders; Moore, The Post- Darwinian Controversies; Numbers, The Creationists, and Darwinism Comes to America; Roberts, Darwinism and the Divine in America, and “Darwinism, Ameri can Protestant Thinkers, and the Puzzle of Motivation.” 7. Ronald Numbers and Lester D. Stephens, “Darwinism in the Ameri can South: From the Early 1860s to the Late 1920s,” in Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America, 58–75. This essay also appears in Numbers and Stenhouse, Disseminating Darwinism,123–44. 8. Berman, All That Is Solid Melts into Air, 16, 35, 36. Chapter 1 1. As Eugene Genovese has argued, some foreshadowing of this identification of southern Presbyterianism and biblical orthodoxy was evident as early as the Old School/ New School split of 1837. Sof tening the harder edges of Calvinist orthodoxy, north ern New School Presbyterians supported their retreat from such doctrines as origi nal sin, human depravity, and predestination and from the emphasis on God’s justice by appealing more to the spirit and less to the letter of biblical texts. See Genovese, “Religion in the Collapse of the Ameri can Union,” 78, 79. But while south ern Presbyterians—who were predominantly Old School—certainly took notice of this development, they still had a considerable north ern ally in their north ern Old School brethren. North ern Old School Presbyterians—who were numerous and, owing in part to their dominance of the theo logi cal seminary at Princeton, prominent—shared south ern Presbyterians’ concern for the preservation of theo logi cal orthodoxy and their conviction that slavery was no malum in se. Until the rise of antislavery and the intensification of sectionalism in the 1850s, the consonance of north ern and south ern Old School positions tended to prevent the clear association—in the southern Presbyterian mind—of the South with orthodoxy and the North with heterodoxy. Some of the material in both this chapter and the sec ond chapter has been expressed in a different...
OR
