David's post is on target. Rhea never addresses his own thesis statement: why did non-slaveholders in the South fight? Of course the other question should be, why did many slaveholders oppose secession and support the Federal government? History is just not that simple.

In 1860 the opinion holding that white men and white civilization were superior to their black counterparts was universal. Certainly Abraham Lincoln and most in his political party held this belief. Mr Rhea must know all this. Yet the article strongly suggests that this concept was limited to slaveholders.

David makes the well-taken point that in 1860 church attendance in the Southern states wasn't universal. In fact, the influence of the church in 1860 may not be much different than it is today (far more people stay home on Sunday than attend worship services).

That being said, I'd like to add a few remarks to Mr Rhea's comments on Southern ministers, the Bible and the slavery issue. Here are relevant paragraphs from Mr Rhea's article:

The Biblical argument started with Noah’s curse on Ham, the father of Canaan, which was used to demonstrate that God had ordained slavery and had expressly applied it to Blacks. Commonly cited were passages in Leviticus that authorized the buying, selling, holding and bequeathing of slaves as property. Methodist Samuel Dunwody from South Carolina documented that Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Job owned slaves, arguing that “some of the most eminent of the Old Testament saints were slave holders.” The Methodist Quarterly Review noted further that “the teachings of the new testament in regard to bodily servitude accord with the old.” While slavery was not expressly sanctioned in the New Testament, Southern clergymen argued that the absence of condemnation signified approval. They cited Paul’s return of a runaway slave to his master as Biblical authority for the Fugitive Slave Act, which required the return of runaway slaves.

Noah's curse is not the same as God's curse. The patriarchs did own slaves, but the Bible never equates the black race with perpetual servitude, and race is never identified with slavery. Most slaves mentioned in the Old and New Testaments are not black Africans. The Gospel message goes to people of all nations. In the book of Acts, Philip doesn't tell the Ethiopian eunuch, "You're supposed to be a slave. Did you steal that chariot? Go back to Africa!"

As Pastor Dunwody of South Carolina summed up the case: “Thus, God, as he is infinitely wise, just and holy, never could authorize the practice of a moral evil. But god has authorized the practice of slavery, not only by the bare permission of his Providence, but the express provision of his word. Therefore, slavery is not a moral evil.” Since the Bible was the source for moral authority, the case was closed. “Man may err,” said the southern theologian James Thornwell, “but God can never lie.”

As a Presbyterian I'm somewhat familiar with James H Thornwell. Thornwell, like most Southern clergymen, overplayed his hand. Scripture treats slavery much the same as divorce, war and other outcomes of life in a fallen world. God calls on men to behave justly and regulates the outcome of sin. He allows divorce under certain circumstances; God does not 'approve' of it. See further discussion here --
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

The prominent South Carolina Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell did not mince his words. “The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.”

Thornwell attacks opponents in the strongest language, but the best spokesmen for the cause of Christ often do so. Martin Luther is a good example.

Thornwell and other Southern pastors understood the true difference between themselves and the spokesmen for abolition. For the most part (John Brown being one notable exception), the abolitionist denied the authority of Scripture. Their argument went something like this: slavery represents the greatest moral wrong that exists in the world today. The Bible doesn't clearly condemn slavery and it certainly does not call for the overthrow of slavery. The Bible therefore cannot be our authority for moral values. A higher law must exist, and only rational human beings can determine what that higher law may be.

In my opinion, once the Bible is set aside as being THE authority for moral values, the church loses its foundations and begins a downward slide. The decline of Christianity in New England can be traced to the rise of abolitionism in the antebellum years.