Faith in the Fight: Religion and the American Soldier in the Great War Book

Religion was not the cause of the Great War, but Ebel argues that in America religion created an environment that was conducive for producing a warrior spirit. Ebel stated that "the properly religious man was a man of action, willing to welcome danger and sacrifice, and happy to deal harshly with God's enemies" (2) Muscular Christianity stressed strenuous activity as opposed to the sort of white collar desk jobs that were becoming more common in America. Jesus was not portrayed as the passive turn the other cheek man who let the Roman soldiers scourge him. White soldiers connected to Christ as a warrior, but African American soldiers on the other hand were more likely to connect to Christ's sufferings. For African Americans "service to country was not service to God." (125).
While the war was fought over seas, many internal issues in America contributed to the war. Ebel asserted that "the American soldiers and war workers hoped that their sacrifices and struggles would redeem a fallen world, unite a fractured country, and bring a just and lasting peace" (47). Redemption factored significantly for the individual as well on a personal level. Many young men felt like their lives did not mean much and or had not yet amounted to much, and to die as a war hero offered them the glory and significance thy otherwise lacked. Shockingly, some men actually lamented not having the opportunity to die and be guaranteed salvation. As far as uniting a fractured country went, this motif was most evident in the actions and thoughts of African American soldiers. If they served on the side of justice in the face of international tyranny, then how could the U.S. government and people not recognize their equal status as citizens? When this did not happen post war, people like W.E.B. Dubois became very disillusioned.
Ebel drew heavily on poetry to build his case. Poetry is a very tricky type of source to use because the meaning of poems is not always clear and can often be layered. While he did admit that he was engaging in conjecture, Ebel on numerous occasions would point out what a poem meant on the surface and then provide a deeper, usually darker interpretation. Poetry is meant to be interpreted and can mean different things to different people, so this is a legitimate tactic to use but sometimes I think he stretched interpretation a little too far.
One poem that I fund particularly troublesome for Ebel's argument was Thomas F. Coakley's "The Holocaust." Despite being Catholic, I found Coakley's poem to actually sound quite Jewish. He equated the soldiers to "Unspotted holocausts who kept Thy law" which is odd imagery for a Catholic who neither has a temple that he offers holocausts in nor follows the Mosaic Law (93). This poem has interesting implications for Ebel's thesis. There is nothing particularly glorious about being equated with unspotted holocausts which would liken the soldiers to livestock sacrificed in the Temple. One could make the argument that the soldiers were the best America had to offer as "first born sons" and thus make them a noble sacrifice, but Ebel does not do so in his analysis of Coakley. The poem does not even emphasize the redemptive quality of war which is theme critical to Ebel's argument. In the same way that you can't take your crippled yearling lamb and fix it up to make it a suitable sacrifice at Passover, neither can dying in war make amends for passed misdeeds. The soldiers were "pure of heart" thus they should have been bound for heaven's gates regardless of the war. I also disagree with Ebel's connection to the Passion. Christ died to redeem others, not himself. The soldiers died to save the world from tyranny and despotism, not their souls.