Scholars in the field of rhetoric deal with more than the mechanics of language. The state university from which I earned a doctoral degree has placed the field of oral rhetoric into the Philosophy Department. Once dominant as the context of education, even for the eminent Augustine in the late fourth century, it may now be virtually lost in the massive educational system and agendas. The loss may be tragic for persons and society in understanding and balance for decision making, unless there is some adequate substitute found. The problem is current and illustrated in the impasses found in national and state legislatures where laws are supposed to be made on evidence and meaning for the good of society. Stall has led to weakness and some despair in society and in those elected to meet the needs of society. One of the failures in public education has been the omission of adequate treatment of how peaceful solutions to human problems can be found in the application of the ethical use of symbols (words and their accompaniments in nonverbals).
The Americans, Canadians and British have long ago gotten over the Revolution of the Colonies that gave birth to the United States of America. Part of the solution has related to the use of the same language by the parties and similarity in how it was and is to be used, in the persuasion that it was to the advantage of the people to lead themselves, in a nation 3,000 miles from the mothering base. The Canadians did even better by accomplishing the same purpose without warfare. Following the action one learns what it takes to solve social ends, and the mistakes that lead to death and deprivation for masses of populations in conflict.
The Civil War has not been let go in psychic America, although it has been fading slowly. We remain astonished that a people dedicated to freedom permitted slavery by law, and this people grouping was willing to go to war among themselves over the matter. It began with confusion. The South wanted to protect the peculiar institution of slavery, and related it to state’s rights. The North meant to defend the union of all the states, if we accept Lincoln’s assertion and that without losing state’s rights. As is always the case in important issues in society there was emerging complexity, and problems little understood that upset the balances of society and its institutions. Slavery was made the symbol, even in Lincoln’s mind, halfway through the war. Racial prejudice was lurking in the background and was not fully addressed until nearly a century later. Further, institutions like industrial business, education – even the church was changed in the course of the failure to use the benefits of truth finding, and patience in persuasive solutions.
As noted in Mark Noll’s book, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the difference between northern and southern views, held by Christians, was so great that church denominations separated over the matter of slavery. Slavery became an issue, with state’s rights, although idealists north and south wanted to protect state’s rights separately. Christians in the north used Scripture to support freedom from slavery, while Christians (south) used Scripture orientations to support it. The seeds of doubt were sown. As Noll points out the differences weakened solidarity of Christian thought that penetrated much of society at the time of the war and in the course of it. Lincoln pointed out that both sides were praying to the same God. The great loss for the church has been in the aftermath of the contradictions of interpreters. This has led, if we follow Noll correctly, to the increase of the secular society, and the diminishing role of Scripture in the nation most fully formed by its teachings. The public can now choose some church congregations that will accept the lifestyle and beliefs of just about any context we might imagine. Churches have significantly changed what they believed at the time of the Civil War, and often build their membership with arguments against other church contexts. This makes Christ to appear divided. It is interesting to follow the views of nations, and institutions in those nations commenting on the Civil War during the conflict. At one point it appeared the British, opposed to slavery, would enter the war on the side of the south. That nation was torn between its industrial reliance on raw products, like cotton, and its abhorrence of slavery. Even Canada was poised to attack from the north if the British, the close mother country, were to declare war. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020