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: misguided
Review: Peter Marshall, although well-intentioned, is quite flawed in his thinking, and this is not difficult to spot. His view of the Scriptures is one in which he must twist it to fit his morality, espcially in light of slavery. The bible teaches men how to treat one another, including slaves and masters, but Mr. Marshall calls slavery inheritantly evil, which condemns the Apostle Paul for NOT condemning it. Most importantly, however, in seeing how Marshall goes astray is his portrait of Almighty God as a divine being who tries, and tries, but man simply won't listen--in short, a being who derives his power from man's will, and who's arms are tied by man. This is not the God of the bible. To see this in clarity, get the video "The Great Civil War Debate" which Mr. Marshall is clearly thrashed by Steve Wilkens, from start to finish, as Wilkens shines for the glory of God, and Marshall holds to the human morality that appealed to the pride of man in the North, and brought incredible bloodshed, and did nohing to free the negro race in America.
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: 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: 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: 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: Our heritage illuminated
Review: This is a superb synopsis of a watershed period in American history. The theme is slavery and the ensuing rift that widened into war. The author's Christian perspective offers insight and depth never taught in the woefully weak history classes I suffered through. Every Christian should read this and the other two books in the "series" (The Light and the Glory and From Sea to Shining Sea). Kudos!
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.
| 
