Sounding Forth the Trumpet

Rating:
Summary: Sorry, but I can't give. . .
Review: . . .the benefit of the doubt here.

The Concerned Parent has cautiously given the "benefit of the doubt" to Marshall and Manuel's previous two American history volumes. I cannot do so here.

The decades leading up to The War Between The States were filled with crisis and controversy on a wide number of levels. Slavery was not a direct cause of the war. The Abolitionists were not all the "good guys". Many exhibited religious and ethnic bigotry on an incredible scale -- a bigotry just as morally wrong as the slavery they were condemning. Nativism and anti-Catholicism ran rampant -- to the extent that an entire political party was incorporated (The American aka "No-Nothing" Party).

Many, MANY issues and principles were involved in the decades leading up to the war -- and that rather basic fact just doesn't come through in this book. The issues of State's Rights are not adequately discussed. The issues of the power of the Federal Government is not adequately discussed. The legal principles behind the concept of secession are not adequately discussed.

All these issues are important when considering the time period in question -- regardless of one's political, social, or religious position. In this respect, Marshall and Manuel have failed miserably.

No stars for a major disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: Sorry, but I can't give. . .
Review: . . .the benefit of the doubt here.

The Concerned Parent has cautiously given the "benefit of the doubt" to Marshall and Manuel's previous two American history volumes. I cannot do so here.

The decades leading up to The War Between The States were filled with crisis and controversy on a wide number of levels. Slavery was not a direct cause of the war. The Abolitionists were not all the "good guys". Many exhibited religious and ethnic bigotry on an incredible scale -- a bigotry just as morally wrong as the slavery they were condemning. Nativism and anti-Catholicism ran rampant -- to the extent that an entire political party was incorporated (The American aka "No-Nothing" Party).

Many, MANY issues and principles were involved in the decades leading up to the war -- and that rather basic fact just doesn't come through in this book. The issues of State's Rights are not adequately discussed. The issues of the power of the Federal Government is not adequately discussed. The legal principles behind the concept of secession are not adequately discussed.

All these issues are important when considering the time period in question -- regardless of one's political, social, or religious position. In this respect, Marshall and Manuel have failed miserably.

No stars for a major disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: A well-written and interesting approach. . .
Review: . . .to American history. However, he is just plain wrong!

Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous respect for Peter Marshall as a person. However, as with my reviews of his previous two books in this series, I find many flaws.

Item: (And this is technically not a flaw) The authors, in order to move the flow of the book along, do so by means of dialogue. This DOES have the advantage of making history come alive -- but the reader has to be alert that not all of the dialogue is historical, but rather based on what is known of the characters. This is especially important for homeschooling parents (and I am one) so their children will understand the difference.

Item: The authors tend to view American history filtered through their Calvinist theology. Unfortunately, if one is not using a Calvinist lens, their conclusions are far less convincing. It is quite true that many, many religious Americans in the 18th and 19th century WERE Calvinists; and it is equally true that many aspects of American civilization were highly influenced by Calvinist thought -- but there were other major influences as well, and these tend to be minimized. With Calvinists no longer having nearly the prominent influence in American society as they did 150 years ago, the average reader will have difficulty making the paradigm shift necessary to fully understand the author's perspective.

Item: One element which was NOT covered in this volume concerns the hideous persecution of Catholics in the United States -- by Calvinists, especially in the North. The ideas of religious freedom which were part of the founding documents in our land were seriously compromised during the time period under consideration. It is one thing to exercise one's right to criticize another belief system -- but many, MANY Calvinist clergy of that era crossed the line into outright hate-speech and deceit. (The Beechers, for example). In fact, the American Party (otherwise known as the "No-Nothing" Party) was a hotbed of anti-Catholic, anti-immigration American nativism.

Item: This is the most serious. The authors devote virtually all of the discussion of the causes of the Civil War to the single issue of slavery. That is just not historically accurate. (And I'm a conservative northerner!) While slavery was AN issue, and certainly a "hot button" issue, it was BY NO MEANS the ONLY issue -- or even the FIRST issue. The most significant issue concerned state's rights and the balance of power between the several states and the federal government. Another issue was one of economics, and the radically different economic views held by the North as opposed to the South. To play up the issue of slavery as THE issue just doesn't fly.

Item: The issue of Lincoln's attitude toward slavery is problematic. Yes, Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Yes, he was opposed to the expansion of slavery. However, his NUMBER ONE CONCERN, as is evidenced in his own writings, was the preservation of an intact Union, REGARDLESS of how the slavery issue turned out. This can easily be verified merely by reading the various citations on the first floor of the Lincoln Memorial.

So there it is: This is one conservative, northerner, Christian clergyman, homeschooling father who does NOT recommend this book as a primary text -- and frankly, I'm undecided on its value even as a secondary text.

Rating:
Summary: Readable and fiercely inspiring!
Review: A very good historical look of the history in the USA between the years 1836 -1860. What I found interesting was that it tells of people and events that are not known to most Americans. Who were Presidents James Polk or Zachery Taylor? This book talks about any strengthes or weaknesses that they may have had. The authors go into details about what happened during the war with Mexico. The struggles of how new states would be added to the republic, either free or slaves. All of this with a Christian perspective that does not cram religion down one's throat. I would recommend all three volume of theirs.

Rating:
Summary: misguided
Review: Onesimus was a brother because he became a christian not because Paul adopted him. Paul was speaking spritually. Thats why Paul was sending Onesimus back to his master or Paul would have kept him with himself if he was an adopted child. Onesimus was a runaway slave and had to go back to his master but Paul didn't want his master to be mean to him so he said accept him as you would me. I just wanted to correct the first review on this issue. Thank you for your time.

Rating:
Summary: Causing the weak to stumble
Review: Peter Marshall is on a mission -- to reinterpret American history from a "Christian" perspective. Since the end is known to him ("God planned it all out") then his job is simply one of finding facts that support his thesis and ignoring those that don't. Marshall is better able to do this due to his lack of training as a historian. Books such as Marshall (along with Manuel's) provide fodder for intellectually honest people to look at all Christians as suckers for any moving story, regardless of its inauthenticity.

Rating:
Summary: Another masterpiece!
Review: So far I've read all three books in the series, and I eagerly await the fourth! Marshall and Manuel describe the period leading up to the Civil War in a way that you will not see done in government schools today.

Again, this is a must-read for anyone who is either home-schooling their children, or for those who have children in government schools. So much of history is distorted today. It is refreshing to read an historical account written from a Godly perspective.

Rating:
Summary: From a worldview like the abolishionists of which he writes
Review: The author's do NOT miss a major point regarding slavery. They have it more than very many other history writers.

Much of Biblical scholarship of the pre and Civil War era was lacking some tools to rightly understand the Bible's teaching upon the subject of slavery.

With modern scholarship, one can, for example, see that the New testament book of Philemon and the Apostle Paul was not at all pro-slavery! Paul wrote,

"My child...Onesimus (new name)...No longer as a slave, but (as) a beloved brother...in the flesh, ...accept him as you would me."

Note:

1. That this was Paul's "child" denoted adoption

2. That Paul changed the slave's name to "Onesimus" denoted adoption

3. Philemon's receiving the newly named Onesimus as a brother "in the flesh" denoted adoption

4. Paul meant the newly named Onesimus to be recived as he himself would be received--"accept him as you would me." (Paul was not a slave, but a Roman citizen).

The only legal means out of slavery into citizenship under Roman law was adoption by a Roman citizen.

A Master could simply release his slave as a feeedman, but freedman had much fewer rights and social ability than citizens could have; and since he always had the word "libertinus" written after his name and upon all legal documents which were required for work or renting or most anything else, he could never escape that freedman status in Roman society.

Whenever adoption of a slave by a Roman citizen occured, that slave legally became a citizen and was given a new name.

Slave names were immediately recognizable by all in ancient Rome. If kept, the person could not much participate in Roman life. Slave escape was nearly impossible. And when one tried to escape, his slave name followed him. He could not work or rent or do any things in society without documentation. Often, when an escape attempt occured, all the slaves in the escapee's whole household were killed. This caused the slaves in a household to disclose escape plans to Masters, and since these other slaves were often family members of the escapee attempt, they rarely tried.

Hence, what this New testament passage is saying, if understood in its context and time, is plain and clear: Onesimus was no longer a slave, and he utilzed the only legal means at his disposal under Roman law to obtain it, by "Fleeing to the friend of his Master" (term from Roman Law), Paul, for an appeal to his Master on his behalf--"I appeal to you for my child, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, Onesimus." Paul had used his influence to gain the freedom of the slave, whose new name was Onesimus.

I hope this small background information about the Roman world, not readily available to those in the Civil War South (in particular), and this small bit of exegesis of the New Testament book of Philemon will dispel THE MYTH that a pro-slavery position can RIGHTLY be taken from the New Testament.

The abolishionists who Marshall describes knew this truth: the New Testament was for a long-term plan to abolish slavery.

And among other things of the period, Marshall's book shows *how* the abolishionists applied this truth and won. And he shows this from a worldview most qualified to write about it, i.e., one very similar to that of the abolishionists themselves.

Which is why so many other history writers so much miss the whole point!

Rating:
Summary: Great, but misses a major point
Review: The authors do a delightful job of showing the religious influences of the time -- something which secular authors would either ignore or distort.

Regrettably, in dealing with the issue of slavery and the Bible the authors gloss over and essentially ignore the extensive Biblical teaching on slavery, except where it parallels their absolute opposition to it. They express shock and disbelief that many ministers at the time before the Civil War actually argued that the Bible allowed and even advocated slavery. But the authors never even attempted to deal with their arguments or the Scriptures supporting it. As a result, their portrayal of the role of evangelicals in fomenting and intensifying the bellicose atmosphere of the country that led to the Civil War is unjustifiably complementary and benign.

A more honest appraisal would have been to show that by championing single political causes in isolation from the complete teaching of Scripture, the Northern evangelicals made matters worse and were a major part of the problem, not of the solution. Furthermore, by surrendering bold adherence to Scripture (even when it was personally distasteful to them), the evangelicals set in motion a trend that continues to this day. It is not surprising that the revival of 1857-58 they describe was a prayer revival. The Word had already been sifted through the PC views of the day.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent account of the causes of the Civil War.
Review: This is the third volume of the Author's Christian History of the United States. Sounding forth the trumpet covers the period from 1837 to 1860, The period leading up to the Civil war. The Authors give a very honest, detailed account of Negro slavery in the U.S.They point out that the Anti-slavery movement was born in the great revival of the 1830's. The Authors make a strong case that the Father of the movement was not William Lloyd Garrison or Wendell Philipps. But rather the great Evangelist Charles Finney. The book exsposes the fundamental dishonesty of Southern Church Leaders who tried to use the Bible to defend slavery, The book provides marvelous sketches of the marvelous cast of characters of this period especially Abraham Lincoln.The book also gives a new interpretation of the Mexican war that is worth reading. In fact the whole book is well worth reading, especially for those who don't realize that religion is the most important factor in human history.