Catholic view on southern american "Confederate" states and the "Union"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matko

Guest
Hello Ladies & Gents ,

I live in Sydney Australia and have a very fond interest in the american civil war but i would really love to hear a point of view from an American Catholic .

Did Catholics support the south or the union ?
I heard the pope at the time acknowledged the confederate states ?

Thank you for your time and God bless !!
  • Matko
 
I think it had more to do with where the Catholics lived. They fought on both sides. Brother against brother.

thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/catholics-and-the-civil-war.html#.US_PsFcpl1Y

catholichistory.net/Spotlights/SpotlightCivilWar.htm

I think the Pope was just making sure that the Confederacy didn’t attack southern Catholics and if the Confederacy did win the war Catholics wouldn’t be persecuted in the south.

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/pope-pius-ix-and-confederacy.html

civilwartalk.com/threads/did-the-pope-states-of-the-church-holy-see-recognize-the-confederacy.11970/
 
Thank you both for the info !
I’m reading it now , Please any more information would be great i would love to hear personal thoughts too .
 
Matko said:
Hello Ladies & Gents ,

I live in Sydney Australia and have a very fond interest in the american civil war but i would really love to hear a point of view from an American Catholic .

Did Catholics support the south or the union ?
I heard the pope at the time acknowledged the confederate states ?

Thank you for your time and God bless !!
  • Matko
Click to expand...
I’m proud of my forefathers who fought in defense of their homeland Louisiana. I definitely oppose slavery, but that wasn’t the only thing, or even the primary thing, the war was about.
 
The war had very little to do with Slavery, at least in the South. The war was about the government attempting to force it’s views / laws on the individual states. Personally, why I am greatly opposed to slavery; if I had lived in that era, there’s a good chance I would have supported the Confederacy.
 
G’day mate!!! Sydney rocks!!! (been there :))

I live in Texas, in the former CSA, but far to the west of the sites of any action.

This region is overwhelmingly Mexican-Catholic and there were no slaves for hundreds of miles. Yet there was a strong loyalty to the CSA. A local citizen became the highest-ranking Mexican-American in the CSA (Colonel Benavides).

The CSA was largely a Protestant place, as was the USA then. But both sides were dominated by local loyalty rather than religion.

The opprobrium now associated with Catholics in the Old South did not start until the early 1900s.

Even the famous poem of the war, “Conquered Banner,” was written by a Catholic priest who was a chaplain in the CS Army.

ICXC NIKA
 
i’m very opposed to abortion,but i would be against any attempt by the federal government banning it and forcing it’s views / laws on the individual states :rolleyes:
 
april32010 said:
i’m very opposed to abortion,but i would be against any attempt by the federal government banning it and forcing it’s views / laws on the individual states :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
👍 I agree the fed needs to but out. If only state supreme courts had been considered superior for their jurisdiction than the federal court then there would be no Roe V Wade. I would rather the law be unevenly applied then universally misapplied.
 
april32010 said:
i’m very opposed to abortion,but i would be against any attempt by the federal government banning it and forcing it’s views / laws on the individual states :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Upon rereading it appears you were attempting, and failing, to make an Reductio ad absurdum. Please consider for a moment that the civil war had more to do with the tariff of abominations and the nullification controversy than it had to do with slavery. The civil war was about subsidiarity and the federal governments intent that there would be none.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
Please consider for a moment that the civil war had more to do with the tariff of abominations
Click to expand...
No.
and the nullification controversy than it had to do with slavery.
Click to expand...
Arguably, but the nullification issue only reached the proportions it did because of concerns over the future of the South’s “peculiar institution.”
 
Thank you all so much for your answers !!!

I love Sydney too but they have term here that the call us new Europeans they call us “Wogs” as a insult but i’m proud to be one 😉

I really have to say i’m really proud of the southerners that went to war in there normal clothes and muskets to fight for there land !

I’m against slavery .

This topic really interest’s me .
 
Wars don’t start over a tax law more than a generation later.

And it wasn’t about “subsidiarity” either.

It was said best by Lincoln himself in his second inaugural: “Both sides deprecated war; but one side would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.”

While the Southerners fixated on state sovereignty, Lincoln knew that there was no future for a fractured America. Closing that fracture was his objective. For him, it was not even about slavery at first.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Wars don’t start over a tax law more than a generation later.

And it wasn’t about “subsidiarity” either.

It was said best by Lincoln himself in his second inaugural: “Both sides deprecated war; but one side would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.”

While the Southerners fixated on state sovereignty, Lincoln knew that there was no future for a fractured America. Closing that fracture was his objective. For him, it was not even about slavery at first.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I. We were already a separate nation.
II. I agree that it wasn’t largely about slavery.
III. It wasn’t merely about tax law. It was about a favoritism played by the federal Government.

The federal government had been increasingly seen as a New England government, especially after the southern and western vote foolishly divided itself leading to Lincolns election. America had been built upon a right to secession. Whether or not you agree that secession was the right choice, and many southerners including Lee didn’t, it was made by powers that had the right authority to do so. After that it was Lincolns occupation of Fort Sumter that goaded the South Carolinians to give Lincoln an excuse to wage his unjust war to conquer us.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
I. We were already a separate nation.
II. I agree that it wasn’t largely about slavery.
III. It wasn’t merely about tax law. It was about a favoritism played by the federal Government.

The federal government had been increasingly seen as a New England government, especially after the southern and western vote foolishly divided itself leading to Lincolns election. America had been built upon a right to secession. Whether or not you agree that secession was the right choice, and many southerners including Lee didn’t, it was made by powers that had the right authority to do so. After that it was Lincolns occupation of Fort Sumter that goaded the South Carolinians to give Lincoln an excuse to wage his unjust war to conquer us.
Click to expand...
You and I are never going to agree on this issue, IDL, nor should we, as it was confusing enough to those who lived it.

I for one have no sympathy for the CSA or it’s modern apologists. To my mind, Lincoln got it right; he knew that a divided America would be easy pickings for other powers. Holding it together was paramount.

I am grateful that were are one nation and not three or more. That that required the sacrifice of early ideas of state rights is just collateral damage.

We should just agree to disagree.

ICXC NIKA
 
Please guys , I’m not trying to create confrontation i just would like to know a bit more about the war 🙂
 
The Southern states seceded over slavery, wrote more laws protecting slavery into their Constitution, and their politicians declared that their government was supposed to protect slavery, and then they fought a war to protect their secession. Any Catholic who supported the South was effectively supporting slavery whether or not he realized it.
 
starshiptrooper said:
The Southern states seceded over slavery, wrote more laws protecting slavery into their Constitution, and their politicians declared that their government was supposed to protect slavery, and then they fought a war to protect their secession. Any Catholic who supported the South was effectively supporting slavery whether or not he realized it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your point of view , I appreciate it greatly .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top