The danger of a world without common ground

Me: You sound as if you know a lot about the Civil War.

Friend: No, not the Civil War. It's called the "War of Northern Aggression."

Full disclosure first: My place of origin is Pennsylvania; I'm a Yankee. The friend to whom I refer is from Georgia. We don't call the war by the same name because our ancestors didn't. It is just one of many differing perspectives on this four-year tragedy in our national life and history.

When no common ground exists between opponents, differences sharpen to a razor's edge and enmities bloom beyond reason.

Even now, the underlying cause for the 1861-1865 conflagration is a matter of dispute. The North claimed the conflict with the South had to do with preserving the Union. The South avers that the war was set into motion to preserve states' rights, which would include the right to own slaves. To be sure, there were committed abolitionists such as John Brown out there but it would be historical overreach to suggest that Union forces were motivated primarily out of a desire to free people of color. Revisionists are free to argue that particular point.

Both sides couldn't even agree on what to call their battles. In one month from today, it will be exactly 152 years since the Battle of Antietam. I call it Antietam because I'm from the North. In the South, the very same battle was called the Battle of Sharpsburg. The North tended to identify a notable skirmish by the nearest body of water, in this case, Antietam Creek; the South used the nearest town as its marker.

Whatever the name, Antietam/Sharpsburg was the bloodiest one-day battle ever on American soil, with 22,717 dead, wounded or missing on September 17, 1862. Both sides couldn't even agree on the outcome. The North said it won because the South withdrew. The South said it retreated because it was out of ammunition. Strategically, the outcome cheered Union forces because until that point in the war, the Confederacy was winning.

Emboldened by victory three weeks earlier at the Second Battle of Bull Run (called Second Manassas by the South), the Confederates swept into Maryland in September 1862, hoping for a knockout blow against the mighty North. A win by the South on Union soil might have turned the tables irrevocably. Abraham Lincoln was concerned that if Johnny Reb continued a successful advance toward Washington, D.C., that the Confederacy would gain money and recognition from France and Britain -- a boon that might have been impossible for Lincoln's government to overcome.

Both sides didn't agree on the war's name, its cause, on the names of the battles, even sometimes on who won a battle.

There was also no common ground on interpreting the Bible.

Both sides seemed to focus on different verses in the letter to the Colossians, a missive attributed to St. Paul. Paul: "Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Colossians 3:11/NIV). Even though the eradication of the "peculiar institution" was not the Union's foremost motivation, that verse can often be found in the antebellum sermons of Northern preachers.

Conversely, the South took a verse from that same chapter to justify slave-holding: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." (Colossians 3:22/NIV) This verse was often on the lips of plantation owners as slaves gathered before them for evening devotionals.

A world without common ground is a dangerous one. In today's world, Facebook is notable for many things, not the least of which are the dangerously unfiltered thoughts of people from all sides of the political spectrum. I read Facebook and am reminded the world is a scary place. Come, Christ Jesus, into our hearts.

Dr. Jeff Long, of Jackson, is a foundation director, a university instructor and a part-time pastor.