A Marriage of Convenience: Southern Cross Afterwards

Throughout most of class we found a number of flaws with Heyrman’s argument, but I believe that by the end of class we could look at Evangelism in a way that fits with the our continuing discussion of class. In our group as well as in the larger discussion we bounced around the idea that from the issues brought up in Southern Cross, Evangelism could be similar to how racism was portrayed in Morgan’s book—a tool for keeping the power with the wealthy white slave owner. Even though Evangelism started out as a religion that flew in the face of the white male gentry’s power and life style—anti-slavery, equality of both sex and race, and a modest life style—it eventually became one of its greatest proponents. This change, as with racism, most probably came about because the wealthiest and most powerful people in the south at the time could benefit most from it. Although we have no real proof that white slave owning men sat in a smoke filled room and plotted how to alter Evangelism to benefit them, we can see attempts to fight the people that stood for counter belief to their own; just as we do not have proof that wealthy white men purposely promoted racism to ensure that they could continue to exploit African slave labor. The white gentry may have not even needed to plot how to change Evangelism or promote racism, but just by the fact that they (the most influential group in the society) preferred those shifts caused them to occur. Another similarity between racism and Evangelism is that it does not seem to be the optimal choice for the wealthy white man nor in either case does it seem that they created these tools for the director purpose of keeping their power. Evangelism took time to change and probably would be a poor substitute for some religion that was created to solely idealize the wealthy white man and African slaves were probably not the cheapest to come (factoring in shipping costs alone), yet it both cases these options might have actually been the best since they perpetuated what the wealthy white man wanted as well as garner support from other groups. In that sense it both were a marriage of convenience, at least for the wealthy white male. Interestingly, in both cases there are a number of other agents that are proponents of these “tools.” Weather it was men that wanted to keep masculinity as a positive attribute or poor whites that did not want to be the lowest rung on the social totem pole, it is clear that white males were not acting on their own—and probably could not have. Furthermore it is fascinating that these goggles that were created by racism and Evangelism with which the South seem to perceive the world have lasted for quiet some time.

Religous Movements and Class: Southern Cross Afterwards

After hearing today’s discussion around class in pertaining to Christine Heyrman’s book, Southern Cross, it seems that our conclusion rested on the idea that Heyrman did not explicitly use class to discuss her arguments about the rise of Evangelicalism in the south. Matt also raised a good point in that Evangelicalism could be seen as a venue for people to participate in for spiritual renewing. But what still remains unanswered is the importance of Evangelicalism to southern cultural history outside of the combining of different classes of southerners. Does Heyrman want us to believe that Evangelicalism is important in the context of an intermediary between clergy, laymen, and planters or is it possible that this portion of Christianity is symbolic of southern culture at a more specific level? Another question is if Evangelicalism is a social force in shaped by southern culture and used as a means for planters to avoid issues of class with other whites across class lines, can any religion be seen as a social force of agency or is it in just this particular situation? This question could resolve further inquires on historical study of religion in terms of its pertinence with social structures. In another sense, while in terms of the majority of southern society, Evangelicalism does not seem to influence it with exception to situations of violent resistance to a general acceptance of the religion on an elitist understanding but it impacted slaves, and women separately from white males, property holding or not.

Maybe it would be more fruitful to consider their perspectives and isolating their experiences into a separate class experience that were in some sense changed due to the challenging concepts such as spiritual equality, tolerance of women speaking in church, and debates on women preachers to separate churches for blacks and whites. For example, “the whiff of sheer insolence- and, as time passed, the stench of racial betrayal-hung over church practices that obliged white men to compete for spiritual recognition with blacks” (217). This passage attests to the opposition the Southern white had against blacks in the church but even though this passage speaks to the spiritual competition between blacks and whites, it underlies a new society being constructed for a lower to non existing class of people that had not been there before. When one considers these outsiders, society changed due to the religion and the conflicting southern culture impacting it.

To add to this idea, maybe a better way of understanding Heyrman’s position in her book, Southern Cross, is considering Gregory Dowd’s work, A Spiritual Resistance. He along with Heyrman approaches ideas of religion in terms of Native American resistance to Christianity in a similar vein to Heyrman. Dowd goes into more detail about the views of Native American theology; from there he outlines the growing resistance, assimilation of Native American groups to Anglo-Americans as well as the Anglo-Americans reactions and manipulations of the Native Americans economically and religiously. For example, “Neolin, the renowned Delaware Prophet, encouraged his followers to give up all the Sins & Vices which the Indians have learned from the White People. On the other hand, he was apparently fond of the French but did go further than most [Indians] and planned to end, eventually, the use of all European-made trade goods”(20). Of course, Dowd does not a direct correlation with Heyrman’s thesis of Evangelicalism because Evangelicalism and Nativism were not both resistance movements but did offer to its communities a separate way of worship. Another difference between the two was that Nativism died out while Evangelicalism survived but both draw upon economic resources used to fuel both ideas.

To surmise, Dowd provides a framework to Heyrman in that he covers a spiritual movement that faces resistance using experiences of whites, Indians, and slaves as well as individual battles while Heyrman uses letters, diaries, and accounts of hysteria and visions which in some ways echoes Dowd. Dowd presents a case in which a religious movement dies because of competing interests and a failure to accommodate to the dominate culture at the time. I suggest viewing other works by cultural historians dealing with religion could penetrate more issues around class in terms of religion and culture impact on class distinctions and tensions.

Southern Cross, Afterwards

Our engaging and energetic conversation this week posed many questions, and may have even answered a few of them! By breaking up into small groups at the beginning of class, we identified some of the Big Questions we wanted to discuss, and shaped the opening statements collectively. The definition of evangelicalism started off our conversation. Although a seemingly specific question, we soon found that the difference between the theological and missionary definitions of evangelical Christianity ran parallel to the distinction between dogmatic and cultural histories of the religion. We addressed Heyrman's implicit definition of evangelicalism, and differed as to whether her use of anthropology as a lens of analysis was or was not appropriate for this topic.

We struggled to understand the actors and architects of the changes Heyrman describes. There were a number of nuances and incarnations to this conversation. Heyrman writes with a tone of "before" and "after", and some of us felt that the moment of change itself was unfortunately lacking from her descriptions. We also discussed the question of clergy and their potential overlap with gentry and the ruling elite. How much, and at what times, could clergy be equated with the dominant class? The crux of this question, which permeated most of class, was that of causation between changes in the evangelical churches and the Southern social order. Was it one of mutual influence? Did it change over time? Was the church selling out to demands of the social order? Was the social order changed by the church?

We identified some important gaps in Heyrman's text where more careful and explicit explanation and framing might have helped us evaluate these questions. By and large, though, I think they are questions that are inherently raised by a book such as this, which foregrounds race, gender and age, and uses class as a consistent undercurrent implicitly running through the whole piece. Because this book does not foreground class, it is more of a challenge for us to find it and examine it. Some of our questions seem to suggest that Heyrman's technique was not always successful. In other ways, though, she seems to view class as an important and deeply engrained part of the society of the Early American South, one that perhaps cannot be parsed from the big picture.

At the end of class, we had a brief chance to compare the implications of Heyrman and other writers we have read for this class. I was particularly interested in the connection with Bouton, and whether their books, although very different in material focus, are in fact of a piece. Both begin with the broad-reaching and radical thinking of the pre-revolution years, adn trace these ideals' gradual (and often insidious) erosion toward the mean. Because our readings are often quite disparate from each other, I think it was important to look at how they might connect with one another, and I hope we continue to make a point to keep those conversations active.

We are also experimenting with new ways to organize class, and this week felt very rewarding in that respect. In the future, I would propose that we meet in small groups initially, each group give a 2 or 3 minute opening statement, and then make a clear agenda resulting from those points. Our small groups at the beginning of class yesterday clearly prepared us for our active discussion, but I felt that the order of our points was not entirely logical. For example, it might have made sense to save the conversation about what was not in Heyrman until after we had had a chance to more carefully discuss what she did do, and why. Perhaps if opening statements become more of a group effort, the task of organizing our initial points under two or three main topic headings for the agenda could be the task of the opening people?

Happy St Patrick's Day.