Catholics in American History

[Sherlock]

Anima Christi:

Yes. Christ the King, Lord of History and Christ in the Americas, both by Anne W. Carroll, are Catholic history textbooks which focus on Catholicism’s role in world history and the Americas, respectively.
A good book on Catholicism’s history in general is Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church by H.W. Crocker.
Another good one is How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Just wondering about the Anne Carroll book—is she a descendant of Charles Carroll, one of the few (perhaps the only?) Catholic Founding Fathers?

 

[Ortho]

I am always amazed when people struggle to be classified as victime. I think that is a somewhat PC practice. Maybe a new ad campaign? “We are all victims!”

 

[katewithak]

Ortho:

I am always amazed when people struggle to be classified as victime. I think that is a somewhat PC practice. Maybe a new ad campaign? “We are all victims!”

I don’t think anyone here is trying to be classified as a victim. Why are you so hostile to the idea that Catholic children learn American history correctly? Or do you think it is good for childrne to hear that only Protestants are patriots and heros and all Irish Catholics are drunks? It seems the Church spends quite a bit of time worrying about the rights of others. But sometimes, charity begins at home and we should give our children a break in the anti catholic world they live in called public school.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

The San Patricios; Mexico’s Fighting Irish

In 1846, thousands of immigrants, mostly Irish, joined the US army and were sent with Gen. Zachary Taylor’s army to invade Mexico in what some historians have called a war of Manifest Destiny.

Dubious about why they were fighting a Catholic country, and fed up with mistreatment from their Anglo-Protestant officers, hundreds of Irish and other immigrants deserted Taylor’s army and joined forces with Mexico. Led by Captain John Riley of County Galway, they called themselves the St. Patrick’s Battalion—in Spanish, the San Patricios.

They fought bravely in most of the campaigns of the two-year conflict, but their efforts failed to stem the yankee onslaught. Soon the US Army occupied the halls of Montezuma, and Mexico eventually surrendered, ceding nearly half its territory to the United States.

Toward the end of the conflict, at the Battle of Churubsco, 83 San Patricios were captured, and 72 were court martialed. Of this number, 50 were sentenced to be hanged and 16 were flogged and branded on their cheeks with the letter “D” for deserter.

Crisis Magazine article on them
And another Must Read
:irish1:

What is this supposed to be, some sort of evidence of Catholics obeying a “higher calling” and being “persecuted” for it?

They deserted the army and joined the enemy’s forces. These were not just conscientious objectors, they actively fought aginst their own country. As they say, “that’s a hanging offense”.

They gambled and lost. It would be different if they simply refused to fight and were court-martialed. To me their action is no more noble than that of a pro-life supporter blowing up abortion clinics. Christians just don’t do that.

Peace,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

St.BJLabre:

I mean on the eve of the Civil War, the vast majority of Americans (who were mostly Protestant) at the very least tolerated slavery were it was.

Even if true, so what? So did the Catholic Church. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the positions held by the “Protestants” of the era then and that promulgated by the RCC (which had no definitive teaching regarding slavery at that time.)

St.BJLabre:

I’m not sure exactly where I could find statistics to prove that but I am an undergrad history major and I’m sure, since you have a masters in American history, that you know that is an undisputable fact.

I don’t know where you’d find that information either, since the frist straw poll conducted in the US was in 1824 (a student run newspaper ran one - forget where).

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

katewithak:

I don’t think anyone here is trying to be classified as a victim. Why are you so hostile to the idea that Catholic children learn American history correctly? Or do you think it is good for childrne to hear that only Protestants are patriots and heros and all Irish Catholics are drunks? It seems the Church spends quite a bit of time worrying about the rights of others. But sometimes, charity begins at home and we should give our children a break in the anti catholic world they live in called public school.

Kate,

Have you Bill Bennett’s book on the Founders?

I believe that Mr. Bennett is a “devout Catholic”. He has turned the defense of this country’s founders into a virutal cottage industry; several very popular books and a $50,000 per speech stipend. Has he been “taken in” by the biased history that you lament?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[adnauseum]

Ortho:

I am always amazed when people struggle to be classified as victime. I think that is a somewhat PC practice. Maybe a new ad campaign? “We are all victims!”

I was planning to stay away from this thread, but then this fellow showed up displaying the usual protestant - dare I say, “charisms.”

Study the Eliot School Rebellion which took place in Boston in 1859. It was a militant offensive against school boys who refused to renounce their Catholic faith in state-mandated schools run by protestants.

My act of charity to anti-Catholics today is not to post further details.

 

[Brian_C]

I feel I should point out two things.

First, sadly Catholics DID own slaves in my state, Louisiana. The French colonists of the 18th century did use slave labor on their indigo and sugarcane plantations. Of course, this form of slavery was not as immutable as was the form imposed by later Anglo Saxon immigrants to Louisiana. Louisiana had a large population of “Free People of Color” on the eve of the Civil War as a result of emancipation of many slaves at the hands of their French masters. These slaves were allowed to attend church. There’s still a vibrant Catholic parish south of my hometown made up entirely of freed slaves that intermarried w/ their French masters.

Secondly, w/ regard to this quote by Alfie:

From what I have read about Franklin he was more influenced by the French Revolution than Protestantism.By the whay the French Revolution did away with the Catholic Church’s corupt control over the French government and the French people.

Alfie, I highly recommend you read Hillare Belloc or Henry Crocker’s take on the French Revolution, the Enlightenment, and Protestantism. These cannot be seperated. Furthermore, there was no corrupt control over the French by the Catholic church, with the exception of Cardinal Richilieu. In fact, Richilieu acted against his Catholic brethren and as a French patriot in hiring Gustavus Adolphus to join the fight on the side of the protestant powers against the Catholic powers in Germany and Austria. More often than not, it was the Fench monarchy trying to exert corrupt control over the Church and not vice versa.

 

[BOBKAT]

Actually I believe it to be Pennsylvania which is where Philadelphia is and it is the cradle of Catholic Education in this country. I heard that Ben Franklin was the most tolorant governor at the time but I am not saying Maryland wasn’t just that Pennsylvania was as well.

God Bless
Kathleen
JMJ Theresa:

As I remember from my history ed, the most tolerant colony was the Catholic one–Maryland. It had a Religious Tolerance Act.

When it was taken over by Protestants, they overturned the law.

 

[katewithak]

Richard_Hurtz:

What is this supposed to be, some sort of evidence of Catholics obeying a “higher calling” and being “persecuted” for it?

They deserted the army and joined the enemy’s forces. These were not just conscientious objectors, they actively fought aginst their own country. As they say, “that’s a hanging offense”.

They gambled and lost. It would be different if they simply refused to fight and were court-martialed. To me their action is no more noble than that of a pro-life supporter blowing up abortion clinics. Christians just don’t do that.

Peace,
Richard

Wow, where do I begin?
First of all they were Irish immigrants. This would mean of course that their country was Ireland.
They most certainly at no time fought against their own country.
Once here, however, they are now in a very unpopular war. Not many American Catholics rushed to fill Taylor’s ranks. Why? His army was attacking Churches, statues, priests, and the tabernacle. Anything Catholic was fair game for Taylor. Wealthy Protestants perhaps supported this venture, but definately not all Catholics.
These Irish soldiers did what they had to do. Heaven outweighs other considerations. One can’t rightly kill fellow Catholics for a salary consideration. But traitors to this country? Are all people branded citizens the moment they steop off the boat at Ellis Isalnd? For the Army recruiters were there with open arms. Traitors to this country is an inaccurate description. I think you should state what they were- hired foreign soldiers who thought Taylor was full of it and switched sides.
And even if by some stretch of the imagination one could call non citizens traitors, better they be traitors to a country than to God.

 

[Church_Militant]

What is this supposed to be, some sort of evidence of Catholics obeying a “higher calling” and being “persecuted” for it?

They deserted the army and joined the enemy’s forces. These were not just conscientious objectors, they actively fought aginst their own country. As they say, “that’s a hanging offense”.

They gambled and lost. It would be different if they simply refused to fight and were court-martialed. To me their action is no more noble than that of a pro-life supporter blowing up abortion clinics. Christians just don’t do that.

Peace,
RichardIf I was an Irish American (and I am) and was treated as badly as they were by my new country and by the very army that I served in to protect my “rights”, I think I’d have given some thought to doing something similar.

Yes they suffered for their consciences and Glory Be To God for that, but for you to assert that they were somehow immoral for having made that choice under the circumstances that they were in is bunkum.

The fact is that if you had read it objectively then you would have seen that they made their choices based on the fact that they were mistreated and persecuted for being Catholics and immigrants before they deserted. I’ll question you veracity if you now tell me that in their places you would’ve done differently. :irish1:
Pax vobiscum,

 

[ElizabethAnne]

katewithak:

An earlier thread “horrors of the RCC” reminds me of an extreme need we have in the U.S. For years I was a public school teacher until I got a belly full and quit. My issues were over the state standards regulating teaching on abortion, etc. However, something not much mentioned is the terribly skewed history books the children use in American history. Sooner or later we must put together for the sake of our children a truly complete American history book. One that includes what Catholics did and did not do. It is always amazing to me how many adult Catholics, growing up in U.S. schools have absolutely no knowledge of the truth of it’s growth. Their heros are anti catholics, such as Samuel Morse and Ben Franklin. They hold up the wonders of freedom of religion that the Protestants brought with them which is absolutely a fib. Our own people do not know their own history here. Amazing.

katewithak,

I completely agree with you that anti-Catholicism should not be taught in public school. But I find the way you defend your position to be off-puting. I also find that the history you portray seems to be all about Protestant conspiracy and Catholic oppression.

You say that you know the truth about history and that no one else understands how deep the anti-Catholicism in our country has gone. The thoughts of anyone who disagrees with your assertions are dismissed, and it seems that the person is ignorant in your estimation.

If we have all truly been deceived, please go easy on us. We are not willfully so, and I for one can say that I would be happy to review any evidence you can present that contradicts my understanding of U.S. history.

God bless.

 

[buffalo]

From 1906 to VII it was mandatory for Catholic parishes to have a Catholic School because of anti-Catholicism in the public school.

 

[Church_Militant]

adnauseum:

I was planning to stay away from this thread, but then this fellow showed up displaying the usual protestant - dare I say, “charisms.”

Study the Eliot School Rebellion which took place in Boston in 1859. It was a militant offensive against school boys who refused to renounce their Catholic faith in state-mandated schools run by protestants.

My act of charity to anti-Catholics today is not to post further details.

Hear the talk on this HERE

 

[RCCDefender]

Has anyone read the book “Anti-Catholicism in America - the last acceptable predjudice”? I have it but have only gotten through the first couple of chapters. If I recall correctly it has a coment about the Horn Book, that children learned thier ABC’s on, that “P stands for Papists who will burn in Hell” (or something to that effect).

 

[buffalo]

RCCDefender:

Has anyone read the book “Anti-Catholicism in America - the last acceptable predjudice”? I have it but have only gotten through the first couple of chapters. If I recall correctly it has a coment about the Horn Book, that children learned thier ABC’s on, that “P stands for Papists who will burn in Hell” (or something to that effect).

I read the book, but don’t recall that. My memory perhaps.

 

[BillP]

If the persecution and exploitation of Catholics was so bad here in the US, then why did millions and millions of Irish, Germans, Italians and Poles come here?

Give me a break.

Kate, you’re simply misreperesenting history. The entire purpose of the 1st Amendment was to make sure there was no religious test of any kind for American’s to participate in politics. That there would be no “penal Laws” like the ones quoted in an ealier post on this thread. To say that the founding fathers didn’t want Catholics to have religious freedom is simply not true. They might have been anti-Catholic, but they believed Catholics were entitled to practice their religion.

As far as the efforts of Blacks ending Slavery, that’s another mis-representation. During its entire history the Underground Rail freed just over 200,000 slaves (if you count every single escaped slave between 1840 and 1860 as a beneficiary of the Under RR). In contrast there were 4 million slaves listed in the 1860 census. Slaverey was ended when the United States Army ended it with the sword and the flame.

As far as the Elliot School Rebellion, one child was abused, by one school administrator. And the excesses of that one administrator resulted in the Boston School system changing it policy of requiring student participation in religious activities. A close reading of McGreevy will show interested parties that the “crisis” was caused at least as much the overzelousness of Fr Wiget as by the latent anti-Catholicism in Boston.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

buffalo:

From 1906 to VII it was mandatory for Catholic parishes to have a Catholic School because of anti-Catholicism in the public school.

What changed to decrease enrollment in the Catholic schools, if anti-Catholicism is still prevalent?

My own theory is that cost is the primary cause. In the 1950’s, 90% of the teachers in Catholic schools were members of the clergy or of religious orders. Today, nearly 95% of teachers in Catholic schools are laypersons (who don’t work nearly as cheaply).

But I would contend that for the majority of the 20th century the main attraction for a Catholic education was quality rather than an escape from religious persecution. Although in some cases that may have still been a consideration.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[BillP]

Church Militant:

If I was an Irish American (and I am) and was treated as badly as they were by my new country and by the very army that I served in to protect my “rights”, I think I’d have given some thought to doing something similar

Could you kindly provide a few examples of the horrible treatment these men received simply because they were Catholic? The treatment that was so bad that they had no choice other than to desert to the enemy and fight on his side?

My understanding was that the Mexican govenrment was cynically exploited the religion of these poor men but what do Iknow.

Also, I’d note that after capture the men were dealt with in scrupuously fair manner. Severlal of the death sentances were commuted and the ringleader, Capt Riley, wasn’t executed because the U.S. wasn’t at war at the time he deserted.

After the peace treaty was signed the surviving memeber were relaesed from prison and repatriated to Mexico.

 

[katewithak]

BillP:

Could you kindly provide a few examples of the horrible treatment these men received simply because they were Catholic? The treatment that was so bad that they had no choice other than to desert to the enemy and fight on his side?

My understanding was that the Mexican govenrment was cynically exploited the religion of these poor men but what do Iknow.

Also, I’d note that after capture the men were dealt with in scrupuously fair manner. Severlal of the death sentances were commuted and the ringleader, Capt Riley, wasn’t executed because the U.S. wasn’t at war at the time he deserted.

After the peace treaty was signed the surviving memeber were relaesed from prison and repatriated to Mexico.

For the answers to your first questions, please read the beginning posts in the threads.
The San Patricios did not fight for the Mexicans because the Mexican government cynically exploited their religion. They fought for the Mexicans because Taylor was systematically burning priests, killing parishioners, throwing tabernacles out of the Church, and smashing statues. Taylor was destroying the evidence of their religion. He wasn’t just “cynically exploitive.”