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.
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 ?
We’ll let you know when it’s over. 😛

As you can see, the answer depends on who you ask. IMO, the civil war was about slavery in the same sense that the Iraq war was about global terror: the issues ARE inseparably intwined, but there was more to the story.

Had there not been significant financial benefits in it for some of the proto-robber barons of the north, there never could have been enough support to actually raise the issue to the level of war. Had the south not been utterly determined to retain their “state’s rights” to keep slavery legal, THEY would not have been able to raise the public will high enough for outright war. Ignoble motives existed in the leadership of both sides, but at the popular level, it was totally about slavery.

The state’s rights smokescreen is the EXACT same argument “pro-choice” advocates use today. Then, as now, my “right to choose” can and MUST end at the line in which I desire to infringe on the more basic rights of another. This is true for both individuals and unjust governmental policies.
 
We’ll let you know when it’s over. 😛

As you can see, the answer depends on who you ask. IMO, the civil war was about slavery in the same sense that the Iraq war was about global terror: the issues ARE inseparably intwined, but there was more to the story.

Had there not been significant financial benefits in it for some of the proto-robber barons of the north, there never could have been enough support to actually raise the issue to the level of war. Had the south not been utterly determined to retain their “state’s rights” to keep slavery legal, THEY would not have been able to raise the public will high enough for outright war. Ignoble motives existed in the leadership of both sides, but at the popular level, it was totally about slavery.

The state’s rights smokescreen is the EXACT same argument “pro-choice” advocates use today. Then, as now, my “right to choose” can and MUST end at the line in which I desire to infringe on the more basic rights of another. This is true for both individuals and unjust governmental policies.
State’s Rights is still a big thing in the South. That is why most of us are always red states. Small federal government, give the power to the states. It isn’t the same argument as being pro-choice. People who vote red usually aren’t ok with the pro-choice movement, actually.
 
State’s Rights is still a big thing in the South. That is why most of us are always red states. Small federal government, give the power to the states. It isn’t the same argument as being pro-choice. People who vote red usually aren’t ok with the pro-choice movement, actually.
State’s rights are still a big thing with me too, as is a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body. But in both cases, those rights STOP at the line in which either one of them attempt to deny another human being a more fundamental right.
 
I have never understood why states who freely joined the United States, could not decide to withdraw their allegiance. .
They can, it’s just they cannot act unilaterally. A State does not join the United States simply because it’s legislature votes to do so. It requires an act of Congress to admit them.
To leave the Union would therefore require a reversal of the process, in other words, an Act of Congress and a vote by the State legislature.

The Federal Government is, at it’s core, a bilateral Treaty between Sovereign entities. As such, unless specific provisions are made, one party in a Treaty cannot simply disregard or dissolve the treaty conditions.

So California, for example, COULD leave the Union. But it cannot do so unilaterally. Both Congress and Sacramento would have to vote in agreement. And the terms of that separation would have to be decided. For example, what share of the National Debt would California have to absorb. What is the ownership status of Federal property in CA ( National Parks, federal buildings, military installations etc…)
 
They can, it’s just they cannot act unilaterally. A State does not join the United States simply because it’s legislature votes to do so. It requires an act of Congress to admit them.
To leave the Union would therefore require a reversal of the process, in other words, an Act of Congress and a vote by the State legislature.

The Federal Government is, at it’s core, a bilateral Treaty between Sovereign entities. As such, unless specific provisions are made, one party in a Treaty cannot simply disregard or dissolve the treaty conditions.

So California, for example, COULD leave the Union. But it cannot do so unilaterally. Both Congress and Sacramento would have to vote in agreement. And the terms of that separation would have to be decided. For example, what share of the National Debt would California have to absorb. What is the ownership status of Federal property in CA ( National Parks, federal buildings, military installations etc…)
And if Congress refused? Perhaps there is some legal remedy for the breaking of a treaty, as there is for the breaking of a contract, but in my mind it should never be the cause for spilling blood.
 
To get back to the OP’s original question, I think it depended on where a Catholic lived. Catholics in the South supported the Confederacy, and probably at least thought it was okay for people to have the right to own slaves. Even religious orders in Louisiana and Maryland owned slaves. Now while the church encouraged people to treat slaves fairly, as is the case with any human institution, some did it the right way, some treated their slaves like animals and unfairly.

As for the North, I think most Catholics there were against slavery. But, most of them weren’t so much. Many Irish didn’t want to compete with blacks for jobs since Irish were treated just as bad in northern cities (i’ve even heard that someone back in the 1850’s called the Irish N******s turned inside out). Also, I know a lot of Catholics in the Midwest were not necessarily big Union supporters (some were what were called “Copperheads” and were Democrats who wanted peace).

So, much like today, Catholics were like anyone else for better or worse. It doesn’t mean they were wrong or right. Surely some fought for states rights in the south ( people are wrong though when they say it was just states rights, it was states rights and slavery, it all intertwines) while in the north, some wanted to free slaves or keep the Union together, some could care less.

Also, just as a side note. Anyone know any of the Catholic Generals? I know that in the North, Sherman, Sheridan, Rosencrans, and Meade were Catholics. I know the South had a few. PGT Beauregard was one, and maybe James Longstreet (I think he converted after the war). Even Jefferson Davis was educated in a Catholic School in Kentucky and I thought i heard he seriously wanted to convert.
 
From Wikipedia:

Although Pope Pius IX never did sign an actual statement supporting the Confederacy, he wrote a “letter to Jefferson Davis [that] was accompanied by an autographed picture of the pope”[9] in which the Pope addressed the Confederate President as "the “Honorable President of the Confederate States of America”[10] showing that the Pope recognized (at least on a personal level) the Confederate States of America to be an actual country (and separate from the United States of America). Charles Chiniquy vowed that letter caused great distress to Abraham Lincoln.[11] Robert E. Lee, pointing to his own portrait of Pius IX, told a visitor after the war that he was “the only sovereign… in Europe who recognized our poor Confederacy”.
 
The construction on the original building for our parish was begun in 1859 and was halted because of the Civil War. The building served as a hospital for wounded Confederate soldiers.
 
I also found this remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-01150rebels_in_rome.htm:

In the South, the pope saw a society that clung to traditional religious and family values, which he believed to be more conducive to Catholic principles despite its support of slavery.

… the pope saw something attractive in the Confederacy – so attractive that he was willing to stand alone as the only European leader willing to formally associate himself with its government.

…As late as August, 1864 (eight months before General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox), Rufus King, a Federal liaison to Rome, was admitting that papal offices remained unenthusiastic about the Union cause and Cardinal Antonelli was still concerned over the dangers of untimely emancipation. Pope Pius IX himself had recently confessed to a British diplomat that his real sympathies were with the Confederacy.

Also, this was of interest from the same article:

At the time, Abraham Lincoln himself insisted that Slavery was not the issue which motivated him first to refuse to negotiate with the Confederacy and later to invade the South. In an August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln writes: “**My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. **If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.” [my boldface]
 
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.
I don’t think this is entirely true.

In my state, the government of the state tried to remain in the Union but neutral in the fight. But that was unacceptable to the Union, which invaded and seized a state arsenal at St. Louis, shot up a bunch of citizens, imprisoned members of the State Guard on the bare assumption they were Confederate in sympathy, and started drafting citizens. The Union then commissioned the notorious Kansas bandit and murderer, Jim Lane, to harrass people in western Missouri, triggering guerilla responses that lasted well after the Civil War ended elsewhere. The governor and legislature then voted to secede and Missouri was admitted to the Confederacy. For its reasons, the Union never accepted it that Missouri seceded and therefore never required that it pass a law of reunion like all the others, notwithstanding that it did undergo a savage Reconstruction era that also had anti-Catholic elements to it. So perhaps we’re the only Confederate State left, at least theoretically. Well, I think Ky could possibly claim to be another.

Very few people in this State owned slaves and the few that did, did not own many. Slavery didn’t actually work well here because of the nature of agriculture here, and the topography, and undoubtedly never would have.

The core of the Missouri Brigade, the most decorated unit in all Confederate armies everywhere, was largely composed of Irish Catholics from St. Louis. There were also largely Irish Catholic Union units, though most Missouri Union Catholic troops were Germans who had barely arrived here in time to be drafted. Ironically, at Vicksburg, the First Missouri (CSA) faced the First Missouri (USA) across the trenches for a time. Missouri is the only state that has both Union and Confederate monuments at Vicksburg today.

Whatever the Civil War meant to South Carolina, for instance, it had a very different meaning in other places. Missouri was then composed mostly of people of southern heritage and backgrounds. So here, for those who fought for the Confederacy, it wasn’t about slavery. It was a matter of affinity combined with indignation at being invaded and treated very harshly in the process. And too, the governor and legislature actually thought Missouri had the right, as a state, to be in the Union but not to be a combatant in the Civil War; not all that unreasonable an assumption at the time, but one of which the Union disabused them in spades.

As another example, Oklahoma wasn’t even a state at the time, but there were Confederate Indian units from and in Oklahoma. For them, it was a matter of having a greater likelihood of Indian Territory independence and self-rule in the event of Confederate victory, a not unlikely outcome had the Confederacy won.
 
OP, I found a really interesting link you might be interested in:

acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-21-number-4/onward-catholic-soldiers-catholic-church-during-am

There is even a photo of a priest “ministering” to Union troops (not sure if it’s Mass or not, but it looks like it to me).

An interesting quote from it was this:
Indeed, it was this unity of the Catholic Church which proved unique among American Christianity. While Protestant denominations split over theological and sectional lines, the Catholic Church stood as the only major church which remained united during the war, even if its congregants fought on opposite sides. While the Civil War brought violence and destruction to the nation on a horrific scale, it did provide the Catholic Church in America, and its largely immigrant community, a means to show the “better angels of our nature” and the loyalty and Christian sense of duty of its parishioners; a service and devotion which continues to the present day.
I live in the South and I remember a story about when the Union troops arrived about a bunch of Union (Catholic) soldiers defending a local Catholic Church (from being burned I think). Unfortunately, I can’t find anything online. I swear I read it in the local Catholic newspaper though… so I will keep looking.
 
I don’t think this is entirely true.

In my state, the government of the state tried to remain in the Union but neutral in the fight. But that was unacceptable to the Union, which invaded and seized a state arsenal at St. Louis, shot up a bunch of citizens, imprisoned members of the State Guard on the bare assumption they were Confederate in sympathy, and started drafting citizens. The Union then commissioned the notorious Kansas bandit and murderer, Jim Lane, to harrass people in western Missouri, triggering guerilla responses that lasted well after the Civil War ended elsewhere. The governor and legislature then voted to secede and Missouri was admitted to the Confederacy.
Just because I think the Union was in the right does not mean I endorse every action taken by the USA.
The core of the Missouri Brigade, the most decorated unit in all Confederate armies everywhere, was largely composed of Irish Catholics from St. Louis. There were also largely Irish Catholic Union units, though most Missouri Union Catholic troops were Germans who had barely arrived here in time to be drafted. Ironically, at Vicksburg, the First Missouri (CSA) faced the First Missouri (USA) across the trenches for a time. Missouri is the only state that has both Union and Confederate monuments at Vicksburg today.
So, Catholics fought for Nazi Germany, it still doesn’t make it right.
Whatever the Civil War meant to South Carolina, for instance, it had a very different meaning in other places. Missouri was then composed mostly of people of southern heritage and backgrounds. So here, for those who fought for the Confederacy, it wasn’t about slavery. It was a matter of affinity combined with indignation at being invaded and treated very harshly in the process. And too, the governor and legislature actually thought Missouri had the right, as a state, to be in the Union but not to be a combatant in the Civil War; not all that unreasonable an assumption at the time, but one of which the Union disabused them in spades.
As another example, Oklahoma wasn’t even a state at the time, but there were Confederate Indian units from and in Oklahoma. For them, it was a matter of having a greater likelihood of Indian Territory independence and self-rule in the event of Confederate victory, a not unlikely outcome had the Confederacy won.
War is a government’s attempt to enforce political policy through violent means. The political leaders of the CSA and their Constitution were dedicated to the protection of slavery. This is the policy that the CSA was fighting for and therefore any state that chose to join the Confederacy was fighting to support that policy.
 
The political leaders of the CSA and their Constitution were dedicated to the protection of slavery. This is the policy that the CSA was fighting for and therefore any state that chose to join the Confederacy was fighting to support that policy.
Even Lincoln did not think the war was about slavery. For him it was about preserving the Union. He said so.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Abraham Lincoln
wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Civil_War_fought_to_free_slaves_or_perserve_the_Union
 
👍 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.
If Roe v. Wade were to be reversed, then each state would be allowed to make its own decision about the legality of abortion.
 
Even Lincoln did not think the war was about slavery. For him it was about preserving the Union. He said so.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Abraham Lincoln
wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Civil_War_fought_to_free_slaves_or_perserve_the_Union
Slavery was the institution that drove the two sections apart. The idea that one person could be the property of the other was antithetical to the idea of personal liberty. Of course, slavery was also a natural institution. It was even found among the indian nations prior to the coming of the white man.
 
Slavery was the institution that drove the two sections apart. The idea that one person could be the property of the other was antithetical to the idea of personal liberty. Of course, slavery was also a natural institution. It was even found among the indian nations prior to the coming of the white man.
True, but Lincoln was never completely against slavery before the war. It is a wonder, the South knowing that, that they still decided to secede. Lincoln felt he must preserve the Union and so he allowed the war to be fought. I guess there’s enough blame to go around, but my question still begs to be answered-- is the cause of slavery one that a Christian should be willing to kill for? It’s off topic, perhaps, but what things can a person kill for without offending God? I wonder if your answer will be consistent with the average person on the street?
 
I don’t think this is entirely true.

In my state, the government of the state tried to remain in the Union but neutral in the fight. But that was unacceptable to the Union, which invaded and seized a state arsenal at St. Louis, shot up a bunch of citizens, imprisoned members of the State Guard on the bare assumption they were Confederate in sympathy, and started drafting citizens. The Union then commissioned the notorious Kansas bandit and murderer, Jim Lane, to harrass people in western Missouri, triggering guerilla responses that lasted well after the Civil War ended elsewhere. The governor and legislature then voted to secede and Missouri was admitted to the Confederacy. For its reasons, the Union never accepted it that Missouri seceded and therefore never required that it pass a law of reunion like all the others, notwithstanding that it did undergo a savage Reconstruction era that also had anti-Catholic elements to it. So perhaps we’re the only Confederate State left, at least theoretically. Well, I think Ky could possibly claim to be another.

Very few people in this State owned slaves and the few that did, did not own many. Slavery didn’t actually work well here because of the nature of agriculture here, and the topography, and undoubtedly never would have.

The core of the Missouri Brigade, the most decorated unit in all Confederate armies everywhere, was largely composed of Irish Catholics from St. Louis. There were also largely Irish Catholic Union units, though most Missouri Union Catholic troops were Germans who had barely arrived here in time to be drafted. Ironically, at Vicksburg, the First Missouri (CSA) faced the First Missouri (USA) across the trenches for a time. Missouri is the only state that has both Union and Confederate monuments at Vicksburg today.

Whatever the Civil War meant to South Carolina, for instance, it had a very different meaning in other places. Missouri was then composed mostly of people of southern heritage and backgrounds. So here, for those who fought for the Confederacy, it wasn’t about slavery. It was a matter of affinity combined with indignation at being invaded and treated very harshly in the process. And too, the governor and legislature actually thought Missouri had the right, as a state, to be in the Union but not to be a combatant in the Civil War; not all that unreasonable an assumption at the time, but one of which the Union disabused them in spades.

As another example, Oklahoma wasn’t even a state at the time, but there were Confederate Indian units from and in Oklahoma. For them, it was a matter of having a greater likelihood of Indian Territory independence and self-rule in the event of Confederate victory, a not unlikely outcome had the Confederacy won.
This is so true. While I do feel the Southern Government seceded for Slavery ( I think it was their Vice President who said something to the effect of that their main aim was that Negroes were inferior) I think a lot of Southern people simply went along with their states and felt pride in their state and region. How many of us would side with our state before the federal government? I know I would.

However I do have one bone to pick with your post. Yes the Union authorized Jim Lane and other redlegs to sack Missouri, but remember, Missouri produced Bloody Bill Anderson and William Quantrill who did the same thing to Kansas. If I remember Quantrill destroyed the town of Lawrence Kansas (part of the reason the Universites of Missouri and Kansas had a strong athletic rivalry until Missouri left the Big 12). While these guys weren’t sanctioned by the confederacy, attrocities were comitted.Granted Quantrill was basically a horse thief and even Southerners condemned him.
 
For an interesting “inside” view of Church teaching and practice regarding slavery in the antebellum era, go to this link and click on “Preview this book”:

books.google.com/books?id=wnFNAAAAYAAJ

This is a scanned Google Books copy of “On the Mission in Missouri, 1857-1868”, a memoir by Bishop John Joseph Hogan, written around 1910, of his years as a priest serving remote rural missions in the years leading up to and during the Civil War. He had a lot of, to say the least, interesting experiences during those years, such as surviving 21 train wrecks (many caused by sabotage), exorcising a haunted house, and barely escaping one of Bloody Bill Anderson’s most infamous massacres (in which a young Jesse James also participated, by the way)… but I digress.

With regard to slavery, in one passage Bp. Hogan describes traveling on a Missouri River steamboat that was carrying slaves for “resale” in Southern markets:

The groans of the poor fellows, as they clanked their manacled hands against the deck, or dragged and slashed in pain their booted heels on the rough boards on which they lay, were truly heart-rending. They were accused of no crime, were torn away without a minute’s notice from their homes, husbands separated from wives and children, sons separated from parents, brothers, and sisters. All were forced to leave dear friends and loved scenes behind them. Love of money caused it all. Traders had bought them and were taking them to trade them again, and for a much higher price, in the slave marts of St. Louis and New Orleans.

Later he describes his own encounters with Catholic slaves and their owners:

*The poor negroes had many virtues, and a gentleness of character altogether their own. Never, in my acquaintance with them, were they ever disrespectful or offensive to me, or to any one else so far as I could see. When on the mission at Old Mines, in Washington county, in 1852 and 1853, I taught a class of about forty negroes their catechism, day after day for several months, preparing them for First Communion… The negro Catholics of that congregation, and they were many, were devoted to the Church. The young men and young women, though not able to read or write, being debarred from such knowledge by statute, had nevertheless learned by heart the Gloria and Credo of the Mass, and several Psalms and Hymns, which they heard in the church, and which they took delight in singing as they followed the plough in the fields, or enjoyed the pleasures of home by their humble firesides. Their masters did not engage in the business of buying and selling slaves, hiring them out for payment, or separating wife from husband or parents from children…The black and white families went to the same church together. They lived in friendship and in neighborship, mutually aiding and depending on each other. The same parish priest ministered to their spiritual wants. They same family physician attended them in their aliments. They lived for each other, died near each other, and were buried near each other. The “Massa and Missus” and faithful servants, choosing in death as in life not to be separated. Surely before the Holy Altar of the one God, Master of all, and under the sacred influence of humanity divinely redeemed, there was and could be neither “bond nor free.” *

Perhaps this picture of slave life is a bit too rosy, but it seems to indicate that Catholic slaveowners (at least in Missouri, and probably elsewhere) were encouraged to treat their slaves as members of the family, and to take an interest in their material and spiritual welfare, rather than treat them as property to be bought and sold at will. Bp. Hogan goes on to state that:

The Church knew how to heal the bruises of the slave and to soften the severity of the master, and had her influence been allowed to prevail, it would have saved us from a calamity now and forever to be deplored, and which neither blood nor tears can ever erase from the pages of our history. Like Rachel, the Church has ever to mourn and without consolation her children’s misfortunes, usually none other than the dire results of selfish greed and atrocious political strife."

The implication seems to be that if masters and slaves had simply been taught to respect one another as fellow human beings made in God’s image, and slaves had not been exploited for “selfish greed” and political gain, the Civil War would have been averted, and slavery probably would have eventually died out on its own. Of course we’ll never know for sure if that would have happened, or how long slavery would have persisted with that approach.

In any event I encourage you all to read this book; it touches on a lot of subjects including Irish immigration and some important issues of religious freedom not unlike what we are facing today.
 
The United States of America was originally designed as if the 13 original States were sovereign with a Federal Government to provide defense and facilitate commerce between the States. Over the years it morphed into the Federal government becoming all powerful. Since the early 20th Century, the Executive branch (President) managed to stifle the checks and balances of the Federal government. Now we almost have dictators that are elected to (2) 4 year terms.

Lincoln was a tyrant, stifled free speech and suspended Habeas Corpus. He never freed a slave. After he died the 13th Amendment passed. 4 States that fought on the Union side were slave States.

I could go on and on. I can bring up points that show we never should have entered WWI and WWII as well as the rest of our wars following .

You will have to read books on these subjects, where the authors are granted access to private diaries of people running the government, diplomatic papers from foreign countries and many sources. Since Lincoln President have put into high gear the use of propaganda and control of the media or purse strings to get their way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top