Of course there was another side to this coin. There were many sides to this coin. After the 1620s the Huguenots were not allowed to flee to Canada from Catholic France. Puritans in New England and Catholics in Maryland and Quakers in Pennsylvania fled to escape persecution in Anglican England.
No claim is being made here that Catholics were warm and fuzzy and everyone else was a barbarian. I am instead taking issue with the pat idea that Protestantism proved an ideological bulwark in the New World against religious oppression exemplified by Catholicism. That is pure historical fiction. All kinds of sects and churches were in fierce competition during the time, and religious toleration was a compromise born of necessity.
“”I am instead taking issue with the pat idea that Protestantism proved an ideological bulwark in the New World against religious oppression””
Protestantism because of it’s ability to divide individuals in Christianity can be used by communist and socialism and other groups as a tool as Pope Leo XIII pointed out.
Excerpt from Encyclical written in 1949
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.”
Here's an area where we can agree. None of the state churches had clean hands and I don't think any difference in numbers mitigates unchristian behavior.
I am instead taking issue with the pat idea that Protestantism proved an ideological bulwark in the New World against religious oppression exemplified by Catholicism.
The Roman Catholics may have been there first, but the churches that emerged during the reformation did their share. Would you agree that it's understandable to a degree that there would be an inherent distrust/dislike for RC's because they were the dominant church for so long and had a longer history of persecuting Christians who did not submit to their authority?
The great thing about our country is we do not have a state mandated religion. No doubt this is because of what came before.