From the 2004 Abbeville Institute Summer School.

After the decision was made to build a new capital on land granted by Virginia and Maryland, George Washington gave the task of sorting through proposals for the Federal buildings to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was very, very conscious of the enormity of what was about to happen. He wanted to make sure that the kind of architecture that filled the Federal capital would illustrate a decentralized political system. Architecture that would indicate a limited, easy-going, and efficient Union. Most of all, the architectural designs of the new Federal city must signify a Union based on humane principles. The buildings must have humanity! Jefferson even went so far as to secretly and anonymously submit his own architectural designs for a new capitol building, but the committee rejected his plans. Jefferson did approve of the plans that were eventually adopted; the new capitol building did not look like a British building and bore no resemblance to the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, or the Palace at Versailles. In other words, it had no monarchical features. It had republican features. They could have come up with completely new designs. Thankfully, they had the wisdom to look back at classical architecture and adapt old designs for new purposes. It took about twenty years to build the capitol, and then the British burned it down and it had to be rebuilt. Originally, they built one wing first, then a second wing, and then the rotunda which joins the two. Two wings and one rotunda – a clear architectural illustration of the three branches of government. The branches are divided, quite noticeably so. There is some Roman architecture which commands a certain degree of awe, but the overarching purpose of the design is to emphasize the decentralized, divided, simple, and often self-combative nature of the Federal government. Most of all, it tells visitors that the U.S. government is carefully delineated. Restricted. Intentionally and thoughtfully restricted in the powers it can exercise. The domes (which were initially made of wood, began to rot, and had to be replaced) were a way to bring humanity to the design. Jefferson was very conscious of this. He wanted to make sure the building was not so rigid and set in stone (literally) that it had no softness or weakness.

Now, if we compare this to the current capitol building, you’ll notice a remarkably different kind of architecture. The new building was begun in 1850 and Abraham Lincoln insisted that the building be finished during the War at immense expense. The dome is completely out of proportion with the rest of the building. In fact, it’s so out of proportion that it’s almost as if they’re hiding something, trying to cover something up. In many ways, Lincoln’s dome illustrates a very different way of governing than that of Jefferson. Lincoln’s is out of control, out of proportion. It’s centralized. The key feature is no longer the three parts, but the dome in the center. It’s also extremely heavy, being made of millions of pounds of cast-iron. You might think I’m making this up, but people are very conscious of these things when designing buildings.

The Jeffersonian approach was to create symbols everyone could unite around, but which also illustrated the decentralized nature of American society. A great example of this is The Star-Spangled Banner, which was written by Federalist Francis Scott Key, the nephew of Joseph Nicholson. Nicholson is important for two reasons. First, he was one of the main leaders of the Jeffersonian-Republican Party, the other two being John Randolph of Roanoke and Nathaniel Macon. Second, on Nicholson’s family plantation there was a rebellious slave who ran away to the North, a slave by the name of Frederick Douglass. Joseph Nicholson wanted a national anthem, and he liked Key’s poem because it emphasized things that all Americans liked and could unite around – home of the free, land of the brave. Nicholson wanted a tune everyone could enjoy, so he went to a local bar in Baltimore and got the tune from “Anacreon in Heav’n,” and the rest is history.

The Federalists (who were really Nationalists) found themselves in the position of having to create a rival culture or counterculture with which to oppose Jeffersonianism. To do that, they relied on people like Noah Webster of Massachusetts. Webster is most famous for his dictionary, which is presented as the first truly American dictionary. However, the orthography and pronunciations found in Webster’s dictionary are all New England forms. Noah Webster did not travel around the United States trying to figure out how everyone pronounced “house.” Instead, he went to Massachusetts, where he found what he considered to be the most pristine and pure form of the English language – if the United States was going to have a common culture, it needed to be New England’s culture. That’s where the change began. As Harlow Sheidley has described in her important book, Sectional Nationalism, the leadership of New England looked at their political position after the War of 1812 and soon realised they had no political position. Their power had collapsed. No one listened to them. No one cared, it seemed, about New England and her interests in Congress. More importantly, there were all these new States coming into the Union from the Louisiana Purchase territory, most of which aligned themselves with the South or with New York and Pennsylvania; none of them aligned themselves with New England.

So, New England’s political leaders and intellectuals, men like Noah Webster, Edward Everett, who was Governor of Massachusetts and later President of Harvard College, Daniel Webster, editors of the North American Review, countless New England journalists and intellectuals, all made a conscious decision to dominate the literary and cultural institutions of the United States. “If we can’t win politically, we’re going to win culturally!” They set about reshaping American culture into their own image. The language? Reshaped. American history? Reshaped. They set about writing new histories of the early republic and the American Revolution. Guess who wins the war in the New England histories? New England generals fighting in New England. So far as they were concerned, the war ended at Saratoga, not Yorktown. George Washington was a great man – because he was a lot like New Englanders. This was inserted into politics by Daniel Webster. If you read most of Webster’s speeches carefully, you’ll find that he presents a version of history in Congress, where he says that America began as one united people with no disparate interests, that one united people created the U.S. government, which is one and indivisible. All of that came straight out of the New England histories of the Revolution and the Founding. Daniel Webster didn’t make that up himself. He got it straight from New England “historians” of the time. In this new way of looking at American culture, there was also a need to deprecate other sections of the country, especially the seat of anti-nationalist sentiment, the South. Numerous histories, sermons, and travel accounts harped upon the same theme: “The South doesn’t fit. It’s different. Odd. These people aren’t true Americans.” Never mind the fact that they had constructed the new government. The South was being written out of American culture and society.

New England’s cultural nationalism did not go unnoticed, and it wasn’t just Southerners that were infuriated by it. People in the Mid-Atlantic weren’t too keen on it either. New Yorkers hated New Englanders. The word “Yankee” didn’t originate in Virginia; it came from New York. It’s a derogatory Dutch term that became prevalent in Upstate New York as New Englanders came in. When New Englanders settled around New York City, that area became known as “Yonkers.” There was a very impressive literary reaction to New England’s nationalistic goals. This could be seen among the Knickerbocker group in New York City, men like Washington Irving, who wrote the wonderful tale, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, which is an anti-New England tract. Ichabod Crane comes into town. Where’s he from? Connecticut. Crane’s goal is to disrupt the life of this sleepy little Dutch town. He even begins to make advances on the sweet young ladies of the town. So, they run him off. They scare him away with the headless horseman myth. James Fenimore Cooper, arguably the greatest writer of 19th-century America, staunchly opposed New England cultural nationalism. Cooper idealized New York and western Pennsylvania. Herman Melville carried reaction to New England nationalism forward in the Civil War era. In the South there were countless writers, poets, and other intellectuals and men and women of letters who pushed back against New England, such as Joseph Glover Baldwin, A.B. Longstreet, and John Pendleton Kennedy.[1] The most important of all was William Gilmore Simms of South Carolina. All the great writers of antebellum America were insistent that they were just as much American as anyone else. William Gilmore Simms summed it perfectly when he said: “We are our most American when we are our most Southern.” In other words, if you want to be a true American, you need to be a Virginian, a Kentuckian, a New Yorker. You needed to identity with the local habits and genius of where you were born and raised. That’s what being an American is all about. Being an American means being local.

There was another reaction to New England’s cultural nationalism, a reaction by Jeffersonian political leaders. I am uncertain whether or not this was a mistake. It begins early on, perhaps in the 1790’s, and certainly by Jefferson’s first term as President. By this time, the Jeffersonians controlled the Federal government. So, while the New Englanders were acting culturally, it was very easy for the Jeffersonians to respond politically, and since they controlled the Federal government, it was easy for them to say: “This is our government, and it is a good government.” So, one the one hand they’re saying it’s a decentralized government, and on the other hand they’re saying that it’s a great government. The Jeffersonians (probably unconsciously) began the process of deifying the Federal government and the Constitution. They became almost holy relics. This was a mistake. You’re saying it’s a great government, but what happens when non-Jeffersonians get control of that “great” government and start centralizing it? “You’ve been calling it a great government for three generations! You’re gonna reverse yourself now?” That’s not going to work well as a political position.

There was one other thing the Jeffersonians did politically, and the Jacksonians carried it forward in the 1840’s. They used the Federal and federative imagery and symbols to promote their political causes. The best thing Andrew Jackson and his supporters did in their crusade against the Second Bank of the United States was to print, in all their newspapers, a picture of the Bank as an octopus with outstretched tentacles. Octopi, of course, grab hold of things and pull them in and suck the life out of them. Do you want that kind of government, Americans? Or do you want to kill the monster? The Jacksonians also insisted that the Federal government was limited. The nationalists wanted the Federal government to do everything. The Jacksonians vehemently rejected that idea. “It can’t do everything. In fact, we can’t even debate everything we might want to debate.” This is where the Gag Rule comes from. Its purpose was to ensure that those things which Congress had no power to accomplish would not even be debated. Anti-slavery petitions had been coming in since the 1790’s. The thing was, the petitions weren’t just about slavery. In many of them, the first sentence would demand that Congress abolish slavery, and the bulk of the petition would demand that it abolish horse racing, gambling, liquor, and a host of other things. Congress can’t do those things and thus has no business debating those things. So, the Gag Rule prevented debate on all such topics because Congress had no Constitutional authority regarding those issues. By the 1840’s the nationalists were losing again. They were in full retreat. They even failed to stop what had at one time been an extremely unpopular war with Mexico. Americans supported it. Even New Englanders supported it. South Carolina sent the Palmetto Brigade to fight in Mexico. Ten to twenty percent of the soldiers in the Palmetto Brigade were from Massachusetts. Massachusetts refused to send them, so they came to Charleston and enlisted in South Carolina regiments. The nationalists were losing culturally, economically, and politically. That changed in the 1850’s.

Let’s take a moment to examine the causes of the Civil War. My purpose here is not to tell you what the singular cause of the War was, because I do not believe there was a singular cause. I believe the cause was a variety of different things that came together, which, had they come together at any other time, might have turned out differently. Slavery had existed extensively in North America since at least the 1680’s. In New England it had existed longer than that, and there was actually a point in time when there were more slaves in New England than in the South. Real cultural differences existed from the very beginning. Tariffs had been a matter of debate since 1789. Political parties had caused tension since 1793-1794. The Union could be dated to 1776, 1783, or 1788, depending on whom you ask. I prefer to trace the Union to 1710-1715, which was when the English Board of Trade finally had enough power to harmonize the various colonial policies of the British government. So, if we look at all of these different things –political conflict, cultural conflict, economic conflict, conflict over slavery– we see that they’d been around for a long time, at least three generations, perhaps even five or six. But there was no War throughout that time. Why 1861? What changed? What was the catalyst that brought things together? Economic nationalism had not been successful. Not in the 1790’s with Hamilton, not with the Second Bank of the United States, not with Henry Clay’s American System. The American System had virtually disintegrated by the late 1840’s. Even at the local and State level, nationalist economic plans (subsidized industrial development, internal improvements, etc.), had all fallen apart. The Erie Canal never turned a profit. The Pennsylvania Mainline Canal never turned a profit. Abraham Lincoln’s railroad scheme never materialized despite Illinois disbursing huge sums for railroad construction. By the end of the 1840’s, decentralized Jeffersonian government had triumphed in America. The United States government in 1848 was arguably weaker than it had been in 1798. What made the difference?

I would propose to you that made the difference was Christianity. A unique form of Christianity, which in the early 19th century was not pervasive. In fact, it would not become pervasive until the early 1850’s. The American political system changed as a result of this new form of Christianity. Prior to the 1850’s America had an interest-based political system. People with different interests had to get along and compromise in order protect the interests of the whole. It was not an ideological system. The nationalists had tried that in the 1810’s and 1820’s with the debate over Missouri. James Tallmadge, John Taylor of New York, Jonathan Roberts of Pennsylvania, had all gone before Congress and said: “This country is based on an idea, the idea of equality. We cannot add any more slave States into the Union.” They didn’t get what they wanted. More slave States came into the Union, most notably Missouri and Texas (and, ironically, West Virginia). Every time the nationalists had tried to insert these abstract ideals into the political system, they ultimately failed. This change in Christianity, however, served as the conduit for these abstract ideals to enter into the political system, and that made the difference. Why didn’t it occur earlier? Well, at the time of the American Revolution, only about 10% of the American population held church membership. That’s about one-fifth of what it is today. In terms of the percentage of the population, there were fewer Christians in the United States in 1776 than in 2003. By 1860, 60% of the population held church membership, and it is quite probable that more people attended than were church members. On any given Sunday, you could find perhaps 70% to 75% of the American population in a church. You don’t get numbers that high today except maybe on Easter Sunday. America became a Christian nation during the antebellum period, but like the nationalist-Jeffersonian split, there were disagreements within Christianity. There were a significant number of American Christians who remained orthodox in their theology and conservative in their beliefs, and there was a considerable number of American Christians who were very innovative, very radical.

There were three ideas that shaped the American religious imagination. These ideas were largely confined to Protestantism (they may have influenced American Catholicism, but if so, I am unaware of it). The first of these ideas is Millennialism. The second is Pietism. The third is Revivalism. Millennialism, Pietism, and Revivalism. Someone asked me during the break if there was a conscious recognition of what New England nationalists were doing culturally in the 1830’s and 1840’s. The answer is, “yes,” but only among Southern, New York, and Pennsylvania intellectuals, but most common people paid no attention to that because most common people never encountered New England nationalism because they didn’t read. They couldn’t read. They did, however, encounter New England temperance advocates, reformers, and clergymen. Many of the nationalist ideas I’ve described migrated over into New England (and later Midwestern) Christianity, and that’s when most people began encountering those ideas. That changed the political system and America.

Millennialism is a Christian idea that is focused on eschatology, which is the study of the end of history (or the end of time). Millennialism depends upon a special interpretation of Old Testament books like Isaiah and Ezekiel. It also depends upon a special interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew and the Revelation of St. John. Not everyone in Christian history has agreed with this special interpretation. Shortly after the ascension of Christ and the formation of the early Church, you do have some Millennial ideas, and these ideas circulated in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, but were eventually stamped out. Millennialism focuses on the thousand years of peace and prosperity described in the Book of Revelation. It is a belief that all history is moving in a certain direction, moving toward this thousand-year reign of peace and prosperity. In that sense, it is progressive. According to Millennialists, history is still dialectical, still a struggle of good vs. evil, and although they believe good is going to win out in the end, something might happen to throw good off track a little bit. The evil of Satan is released upon the world, trying to restrain the march of history toward this thousand-year period, the coming Millennium, and if we don’t do the right things as individuals, as communities, and as a nation, we may fall on the side of evil and be stamped out. For most of the history of Christianity, Millennial ideas have not been accepted. Throughout the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church was very insistent that Millennialism was something to be concerned about. Protestant reformer John Calvin called it “a putrid idea.” But Millennialism resurfaced in the 17th century and became popular among many of the English clergy and some Protestant sects. Millennialism is the mother of Progressivism; Progressivism is essentially a secularized version of Millennialism.

Millennialism also figured heavily in the denominational and sectional conflicts of 17th-century England, particularly with the Puritans and their battles against the crown during the English Civil War. The Puritans started fashioning a version of history in which they were the side of good. As such, they had a duty to wipe out the forces of darkness. Whoever they deemed to be dark and evil was thus, in their minds, the proper subject of their (and Divine) retribution. This motivates people. It energizes people in ways that tariffs do not. Millennialism and the notion of progressive history also got caught up in Whig politics in the 18th century. A number of Whig politicians and historians began fashioning English history in the terms of good vs. evil. The good guys upheld the ancient constitution of liberty, and the bad guys were always corrupt agents of destruction, hellbent on wrecking that sacred constitution. Remember, per the Millennialists history is progressive, but if we’re not careful we’ll get sidetracked. So, we have to put down the bad guys. There is no room for compromise. By the early 19th century there was a large and growing number of ministers and theologians who were delivering sermons full of Millennialistic language – “us vs. them,” “good guys vs. bad guys,” “Christians vs. pagans,” “right Christians vs. bad Christians,” “right New England Christians vs. bad Southern Christians.”

The second idea that dramatically changed the nature of American Christianity was Pietism. A friend of mine likes to describe Pietism as “flubber.” Have you ever seen the film Flubber, starring Robin Williams? He’s a mad scientist who creates this stuff called “flubber.” It’s squishy, ill-defined, rather like silly putty. You can bend it in different ways and it means different things in different situations. That’s what Pietism is like. We know it when we see it, but it can be difficult to define. Here’s my definition: “Religiously speaking, Pietism is, first and foremost, an obsession with achieving unity with God.” An obsession with achieving unity with God. Now, in order to achieve this unity (this is absolute unity), you don’t go through the church, rituals, tradition, or listen to sermons. In fact, these things can be barriers prohibiting you from achieving that unity with God. So, according to Pietists, institutional barriers can prevent us from achieving unity with God. I shouldn’t have to go through a priest, pastor, or any learned minister in order to learn what God is like or who He is or have my unending relationship with Jesus. Thus, these things come to be seen in a critical light. In fact, for Pietists, rationality came to be seen in a critical light. Reason is dangerous. Reason is theological. It produces doctrines. Dogma. Catechisms. Pietists insisted that trying to think out Christianity through Reason necessarily meant losing the spirit and substance. It meant losing authentic Christianity. Since Reason can be dangerous, the last thing we want to rely on is well-trained (reasoned, reasonable) ministers. Those people are dangerous. The last thing you want is a seminarian to be your preacher. For Pietists, then, what is most important in their faith is what they feel, not what they believe. Beliefs separate you from God. We cannot accurately describe who or what God is and any attempt to do so using our minds to place any kind of delineated characteristics on God will separate us from God. We need to just focus on our feelings. Just love Jesus. Just rely on Jesus knowing your heart. Don’t ruin your body by filling your mind with Calvin’s Institutes or Papal encyclicals.

Pietism was an incredibly powerful dimension of American Christianity. It helped produce numerous religious awakenings, it helped produce new denominations, and it produced profound changes in American and British Christianity. Pietism came out of Central Europe, and it is often thought that Jan Huss was one of the first Pietists. It was popular among Eastern European ethnic groups, then spread through Germany, particularly Bavaria and Moravia. The Bavarians and Moravians were eventually run out of town because people thought they were quacks, so they brought their Pietism across the Atlantic Ocean to North America. On one of those trips the Moravians got caught in a severe storm. A man of reason would be terrified that he was about to die. Not a Pietist. A Pietist relied on the peace of God and was confident in His protection. So, the Moravian Pietists sat quietly in their little corner of the hold, prayed, and sang pleasant songs. Meanwhile, a young Anglican missionary who was scared out of his wits saw them and wanted to learn more about what they believed. His name was John Wesley, and he would eventually found Methodism based on the ideas he began learning from those Moravians. Because Pietism emphasizes feeling over reason, it was often called “religious enthusiasm.” When David Hume wrote about “enthusiasm,” he was talking about Pietism. Pietism was also anti-institutional. Traditions can be dangerous. Traditions can be evil. Habits, common customs, institutionalized churches and denominations – all these can be barriers between us and God and are therefore suspect, if not downright evil.

Thus far we have two ideas, Millennialism and Pietism, working in tandem. One emphasizes a dialectical history where Christians must be on the side of good, while the other provides an emotional basis by which people can connect with God through irrational means. Together these ideas undergirded a very aggressive stance against the present world. If you’re a Millennialist you have to make sure you’re on the side of good. If you’re a Millennialist and a Pietist, you have to make sure you feel like you’re on the side of good. And you want to separate yourself from the world. But then enters the third element: Revivalism. Revivalism told Millennialists and Pietists that they had to change world. By the early 19th-century, Millennialism and Pietism were limited primarily to two major denominations, the Baptists and the Methodists. Millennialism and Pietism popped up here and there in Congregational and Anglican circles, but the denominations themselves were not overwhelmingly characterized by them. In other words, most Americans at the beginning of the 19th-century are not Christians and even those who are Christians think these people are kooks. Revivalism changed that. It lent credibility to the Millennialistic and Pietistic ideas.

The idea of Revivalism is this: By human effort and an engineering of specific means and techniques, a person could bring about the mass conversion of unbelievers. In its emphasis on human effort, Revivalism was very different from orthodox Protestant ideas which we might simply characterize as revival. For conservative Protestants, it was God who brought about the mass conversion of sinful people. All you were supposed to do as a Christian was preach the Word of God and answer direct questions about your beliefs. You were to give an account of your faith, but you weren’t going to go plead with people. You weren’t going to try to manipulate people. You weren’t going to create a certain kind of atmosphere or experience that might cause people to convert to Christianity. In fact, for orthodox Protestants, that was the last thing you wanted to do, because if you try and create some special atmosphere where people might decide they want to follow Jesus, they might decide not to follow Jesus once that atmosphere dissipates. Revivalists disagreed. They argued that we can consciously change human hearts. Not the Holy Spirit. US. The leader of the Revivalist movement was Charles G. Finney. Finney was a lawyer from Upstate New York who converted to Christianity as a relatively young man in his early-to-mid 20’s. He was raised outside the church. Finney started off as a Presbyterian and never left Presbyterianism, but he did create a new Revivalistic form of Presbyterianism. Finney believed that there were certain techniques that every pastor or preacher could use that would bring about a revival. If you just used the right techniques, then people would convert. Sitting “prospects” (Finney didn’t all them sinners or pagans) in the front row and then guilting and shaming them for whatever negative behaviour seemed to strike a chord, altar calls, and emotionalistic preaching styles were among these techniques.

Lots of people attended Finney’s revival meetings and large numbers of people professed conversion. Even Henry Clay (miracle of all miracles) claimed he came to Christ at a revival meeting! There was a problem, however. When the circus leaves town and the emotionalism is over, Pietism needs something else to keep it going. Why was it that large numbers of people who “got saved” at Revival meetings left the faith? The Revivalists insisted such folks “didn’t have a true revival.” So, immediately the question arises: “What is a true revival? And how do we create it?” Interestingly enough, after Finney stopped being a Revivalist, he decided to tell everybody what a true revival was and how it could be gotten. He delivered a series of lectures which were later printed as Finney’s Revival Lectures, and in them he listed all the different things that people needed to do to concoct a successful revival. And then he said, in effect: “Your community needs to be different. Your community needs to be unified. Everyone in your community should feel the need to evangelize. You need everyone in your community to agree on moral issues. You need everyone in your community to agree that if you don’t together stamp out various vestiges of sinfulness, revival will not take place. God will not bless you as long as there is public sin in your community. You’ve got to unite yourselves together and stamp it out by force. Finney then listed the various sins he believed would hinder a revival: Liquor, drinking, failing to read your Bible daily, and a multitude of other things, including unacceptable political views. One such unacceptable view was the denial of slavery as sinful per se. Unless everyone in your community agreed that slavery was a sin and also agreed to do everything in your power to stamp out slavery, you would have no revival. It will not happen.

When we combine Millennialism, Pietism, and Revivalism, this is what we end up with. Millennialism is obsessed with the end of time and the coming thousand-year reign of Jesus when He will establish peace and perfection. We want to bring Jesus back, don’t we? Well, Revivalism says we can make that happen. We just have to follow the right steps. We’ve got to work against slavery, liquor, the unequal status of women, the death penalty, insufficient education, and the improper treatment of the insane. If we don’t do these things and clean up the United States, to purge the USA of every vestige of sinfulness. And if we don’t, our insufficiency won’t just prevent the revival, no, no. It will actively prevent the return of Jesus Christ. Our sinfulness is going to forestall the Second Coming of God.

There were two vital figures in this movement, the first being Finney. The second was Lyman Beecher. Lyman Beecher was the father of Edward Beecher, one of the leading abolitionists in antebellum America, Harriet Beecher Stowe, authoress of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Catharine Beecher, founder of home economics, Isabella Beecher, one of the great suffragists, and Henry Ward Beecher, one of the leading preachers in antebellum America (and also a gun-runner to violent anti-slavery Kansans). In 1824, Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney had a meeting called the New Lebanon Convention. At that meeting, Finney and Beecher agreed that they needed to purify and perfect American society. The New Lebanon Convention was the beginning of the Whig Party, which was first and foremost a reforming evangelic party, a party consisting of evangelical Christians who wanted to reform American culture in order to bring about the Second Coming of Christ. Of course, the only way to do that is to bring the power of the government to bear against every vice and imperfection. Moral suasion or preaching is not enough. Force must be used to eradicate sin. Anyone who opposed them was not merely backward or provincial, but evil. There could be no compromise. Federalism collapses without compromise, and these people interjected into the American political system an ideological commitment to creating one unified, perfect society modeled on New England. The South was the first target lined up in their crosshairs. Thank you.

[1]Baldwin’s Flush Times in Alabama and Party Leaders can both be found here:[]=creator%3A%22baldwin%2C+joseph+g.+%28joseph+glover%29%2C+1815-1864%22 Longstreet’s most famous work, Georgia Scenes, can be found here:

Carey Roberts

Carey Roberts holds a Ph.D in American History from the University of South Carolina and is a Professor of History at Liberty University. He is a member of the Abbeville Institute Board of Directors.

Leave a Reply