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

[RobbyS]

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?

Lincoln was never an abolitionist, but he was firmly against the expansion of slavery, which had to happen if the South was to maintain its place in the Union. The Senate was the key, which is why Kansas was a flashpoint. “Moderates” on slavery such as Douglas were completely discredited in the Deep South and unacceptable even in the upper South.

 

[Hamlet123]

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

*You MUST read Tom Dilorenzo’s The Real Lincoln * and his Lincoln Unmasked Here is one of many many quotes from old Abe expressing his feeling toward black America, “*The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these (new) territories. We want them for the… white people” * October 1854. Lincoln was one of the primary forces to change the constitution of the Sate of Illinois to say that no more blacks could enter Illinois.

He was not a railroad lawyer he was THE railroad lawyer. He took more money from people, established a group that lived off the government and became very very wealth via government control of compettion and tariffs. He supported mercantilism (crony capitalism), tariffs and was against the heart of the US government: the right of a people to succeed from another people.

NY city had more slaves than any city in the South.

The war was over Lincoln’s desire to insure tariffs were in forced. Before the Civil war the last say on any law was not the supreme court, but a state. One example is the Bank of the United states (an attempt at a federal reserve national bank controlled by a few insiders in Washington) and the State of Ohio. Ohio ran the bank out. The supreme court said that Ohio was wrong; Ohio said, too bad.

Lincoln was a racist, had no religion (all the preacher except one in Springfield was against him); but he was one thing: the ultimate Sophist.

Other books; Charles Adams, 2000 When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Session
Henry Adams 1877 "Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800 - 1815 Boston: Little, Brown
Paul Angle 1947 “The Lincoln Reader” New York Da Capo
and many more … I have written excessively perhaps causing one not to read this

If you do nothing read Lincoln inaugural address. There is nothing in there regarding slavery except that he would guarantee everyones right to his property. This was like saying you do not have to worry that your slaves will be taken. He did, in his inaugural address say that he would insure that tariffs were kept. These were 50% tariffs! It would kill the South.

Well, you will do much better reading Tom Dilorenzo than reading my diatribe.

• Matko

 

[Hamlet123]

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.

There was a papal bull condemning slavery… someone out there please follow up… I have not the time… the church condemsn and did condemn slavery… just because a priest or a convent did it did not make it right

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Ha! Yes, one’s man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Quantrill was never an officer in the Confederate army. He served in two campaigns as an ordinary soldier, then went out on his own. Anderson was never in the Confederate army.

Jim Lane was commissioned a general by the Union, though there was little to distinguish him from Quantrill or Anderson in terms of murderousness.

And the KU mascot is still the “Jayhawk”, while Mizzou lays no claim to the name “Bushwhacker”.

Differences.

 

[dcminson]

Here’s a link to a lecture on Catholicism and the South, esp the antebellum South:
podcast.tv/video-episodes/douglas-minson-n-c-history-project-luncheon-11911826.html

 

[mkc1911]

I know this thread is a little old, but I thought I’d share a Civil War/Catholic related anecdote I was told while touring the (Episcopal) Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta (which is right next door to the Catholic Cathedral of Christ the King).

When Sherman and his troops came marching into Atlanta and announced their plans to burn the city, the priest at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception told Sherman, who was Catholic, that if he burned a single church in the city, he would see to it that Sherman was excommunicated. So the city’s churches were left alone.

I don’t know how much of that story is true, but I thought it was interesting.

 

[Crescentinus]

I know this thread is a little old, but I thought I’d share a Civil War/Catholic related anecdote I was told while touring the (Episcopal) Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta (which is right next door to the Catholic Cathedral of Christ the King).

When Sherman and his troops came marching into Atlanta and announced their plans to burn the city, the priest at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception told Sherman, who was Catholic, that if he burned a single church in the city, he would see to it that Sherman was excommunicated. So the city’s churches were left alone.

I don’t know how much of that story is true, but I thought it was interesting.

Down in Alexandria, Louisiana, there’s a more violent story. When Union troops tried to burn the town’s Catholic cathedral, a priest came out with a gun. He told the Union officer that if he burns the cathedral, he’s going to hell with him, for the priest is ready to shoot the Union officer. The Union army then left that building alone.

 

[ringil]

And still to this day, Yankees and Southerners can’t agree. If feel like we were taught different things in school. You ask a Southerner if the war was about slavery and we will say no. You ask a Yankee, and he will say yes.

This Southerner, at least by birth, would acknowledge that the Civil War was fought largely due to the legality of slavery.

There is a lot of historical revisionism that goes on in the South.

 

[Hamlet123]

I’d like to thank the person on this blog that left the Dr. Minson’s talk for listening: one of the most enligting and informative talks I have ver heard

Again, thank you whoever you are

 

[JamesCaruso]

This Southerner, at least by birth, would acknowledge that the Civil War was fought largely due to the legality of slavery.

There is a lot of historical revisionism that goes on in the South.

History is written by the victors. Revisionism is to be expected, and not necessarily incorrect.

 

[Hamlet123]

History is written by the victors. Revisionism is to be expected, and not necessarily incorrect.

There is no doubt that the war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with what is no know as crony capitalism, then merchantalism. Lincoln and his buddies put an most disabling burden on the South with an exorbidant high tarriff.
Please read Tom Dilorenzo he will provide over 40 referrence books with extensive study.
Note that Lincoln was a racist: he was a Free Soiler (one desriious of a west without blacks), he was one of the principal writing of a new constitution of Illinois to keep all blacks out of Illinois, he support the slave holders of New York City, he suppor tthe laws of New England attempting to keep backs out of work… I could go on and on…
Lincoln wanted to eliminate States rights in order to control businesses…

 

[JamesCaruso]

There is no doubt that the war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with what is no know as crony capitalism, then merchantalism. Lincoln and his buddies put an most disabling burden on the South with an exorbidant high tarriff.
Please read Tom Dilorenzo he will provide over 40 referrence books with extensive study.
Note that Lincoln was a racist: he was a Free Soiler (one desriious of a west without blacks), he was one of the principal writing of a new constitution of Illinois to keep all blacks out of Illinois, he support the slave holders of New York City, he suppor tthe laws of New England attempting to keep backs out of work… I could go on and on…
Lincoln wanted to eliminate States rights in order to control businesses…

I am not so much into taking sides in the most tragic American war ever fought, but into realizing that neither side had a monopoly on either morality or blame, and how senseless and unnecessary it was to shed so much blood on issues that could have been settled peaceably.

What the United States settled in the Civil War was that it was stronger than the states which attempted to leave it, just as the colonies in 1776 proved themselves stronger, or at least more determined, than the country of England. The states lost their sovereignty in the Civil War, and they have lost more and more of their power ever since. I think it may be fair to say that states and the people today have only those powers which the Federal government allows them to have, not all the powers not delegated to the United States as the Constitution says.

 

[Hamlet123]

I am not so much into taking sides in the most tragic American war ever fought, but into realizing that neither side had a monopoly on either morality or blame, and how senseless and unnecessary it was to shed so much blood on issues that could have been settled peaceably.

What the United States settled in the Civil War was that it was stronger than the states which attempted to leave it, just as the colonies in 1776 proved themselves stronger, or at least more determined, than the country of England. The states lost their sovereignty in the Civil War, and they have lost more and more of their power ever since. I think it may be fair to say that states and the people today have only those powers which the Federal government allows them to have, not all the powers not delegated to the United States as the Constitution says.

Yes, Tom, and in loosing their soveriegnty it signaled the beginning of the loss of the United States. BTW, France and another country - I can not remember now - asked Lincoln to allow them to negotiate some kind of a peace. Lincoln did not give them the tiime of day.

Tom Dilonrenzo and his plethora of data and reference books prooves beyond a doubt that the mercantalistt wanted a P0werful central government and a central bank in order to play them into their hands. Lincoln and his Hamiltonians had no interest in a Free Market system. They would begin their success story with:

1. the outlandish idea that no state could succeed; albeit, many times before the civil war the New England states came near to succeeding while all (all states) understood and accepted it. Sucession is the heart of our country - not anymore. “When in the course of human events…”
2. They would make a central bank to print money to fund wars of which most were unjust. These unjust wars (for examaple the Spanish American war) created millionaires overnight and killed thousands over months.
3. Public schools to sow the seed of propaganda of the Central government’s almighty good.
   4 Propoganda campaigns to encourage the populace to love the central government (DC was never called the capital until the Civil War); e.g., the pledge of allegenace was written by two socialist and the hands were extended very much like Nazi salute until around the late 30s.
4. Unbearable tariffs and interference in businesses.
5. Ending the State as the last say on any law written (Nullification)

They have been exceedingly successful. We are NOT the country Washington and Jefferson gave us. BTW to get an excellent understanding of the wars we have been a part of read Tom Woods’ works (his works can be found at the Acton Institute and the Von Misies Insitute). Tom is a great Catholic.