Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In 150 year old case, Rhode Island confronts its anti-Catholic past
cna ^ | May 12, 2011 | Marianne Medlin

Posted on 05/12/2011 2:26:21 PM PDT by NYer

Nancy Lusignan Schultz / Photo Credit: Kim Mimnaugh

Salem, Mass., May 12, 2011 / 05:55 am (CNA).- Rhode Island lawmakers voted last week to pardon an Irish Catholic man they say was wrongfully executed in 1845. The decision closes an ugly chapter in the long history of discrimination against Catholics in the U.S. 

“Anti-Catholicism was certainly one of the first religious prejudices brought to the new world, and it became widespread” in the 19th century, according to Nancy Schultz, Ph.D of Salem State University in Massachusetts.

Schultz was commenting on the May 4 decision by the Rhode Island legislature to pardon John Gordon – a 29 year-old Irish immigrant who was hanged for a murder many say he didn't commit.

Gordon was convicted in 1843 and executed two years later for allegedly killing a wealthy Rhode Island mill owner who had political connections.

Historians now believe that the evidence against Gordon was tainted and indicative of widespread discrimination against Irish Catholics. During trial, witnesses failed to positively identify Gordon and a judge instructed jurors to take “Yankee” witnesses more seriously than Irish ones.

“Catholics had difficulty getting a fair trial in New England during the nineteenth century,” said Schultz in a May 10 interview.

Schultz is an authority in English and American Literature and is author of several books on historical religious discrimination in America.

Her new book, “Mrs. Mattingly's Miracle,” (Yale, $30) traces how the more tolerant Maryland tradition in the nation’s capital of accepting Catholicism during the 1820s began to decline into “full-fledged, New England-style anti-Catholicism.”

She told CNA that from 1830 to 1860 in particular, movements such as the “Protestant Crusade” attempted to stop the spread of Catholicism in the United States.

Schultz pointed to examples of public discrimination against Catholics such as the case involving arsonists who burned down a Massachusetts convent in 1834. The trials, she said, “were an occasion for anti-Catholic mockery.” 

When the mob leaders who destroyed the Charlestown convent were acquitted, there was “great rejoicing in the streets of Boston.”

Schultz also noted that Gordon’s hanging in 1845 came just nine years before a gift of a block of marble from Pope Pius IX for the construction of the Washington Monument “was thrown into the Potomac River” by members of the anti-Catholic “Know-Nothing” party. 

She explained that “large numbers of Irish fleeing economic turmoil in nineteenth-century Ireland and immigrating to America” helped give rise to the nativist, or “Know-Nothing” party, which rose to national prominence in the mid 19th century.

“The name came from the response of members of this anti-Catholic secret society. When asked about their activities, they would say, 'I know nothing.'”

Schultz said that the Ku Klux Klan and the American Protective Association were 20th century remnants of the Know Nothing Party. 

“Today, fear of immigrants and the attempts to legislate restriction of languages other than English have their origins in this history,” she said.

Schultz explained that the roots of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. can be traced back to the Puritans, who came to New England several centuries ago.

The Puritans would burn effigies of the Pope in the streets on Guy Fawke’s Day, the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, “when the Catholic Fawkes was arrested for placing explosives under the House of Lords in England,” she said.  

In 1775, George Washington ordered the practice to be stopped.


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: irish; ri
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2011 2:26:26 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Catholic ping!


2 posted on 05/12/2011 2:26:58 PM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

When do we get our reparations?


3 posted on 05/12/2011 2:32:10 PM PDT by jessduntno (Liberalism is socialism in a party dress. And just as masculine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Hardly know where to begin on that one. So, Anti-Catholicism began with Christopher Columbus and his crew.

Did somebody grant that woman a degree from a university?

How bizarre!

4 posted on 05/12/2011 2:32:37 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
“Today, fear of immigrants and the attempts to legislate restriction of languages other than English have their origins in this history,” she said.

I was waiting for the other shoe to drop.

5 posted on 05/12/2011 2:34:28 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (Boehner, you B@st@rd!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

Well, you’l have to admit that ol’gal uses English badly doesn’t she?


6 posted on 05/12/2011 2:35:28 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Actually, Mr. Columbus was sailing under Catholic colors. Anti-Catholicism, according to this article, would be more appropriately said to have begun with the Puritans.


7 posted on 05/12/2011 2:39:35 PM PDT by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave
How about this ~ there were no Catholics to be "anti" about other than Squanto, and he kept it hidden from the Puritans. Earlier Huguenot attempts to establish settlements in America had been frustrated by Spanish Governors (of Florida) on behalf of "Catholicism".

In the 19th century you find America receiving huge numbers of immigrants from the European famines. To the degree Nativist sentiments suggested a higher level of risk than ordinarily believed from allowing Catholics into the country, I suppose there was some degree of anti-Catholicism already present.

The history books were clear, though, NO FORCED CONVERSIONS were required of the immigrants. Kind of a new sort of approach to penniless refugees. Latin countries were far less receptive to these folks ~ even the Catholics.

There's a strong tendency on the part of academics with less than sterling credentials to impute anti-Catholicism to nationalist impulses ~ ain't nothin' new in that.

Sometimes they impute racism to the situation.

Finally, the Puritans were a small minority in a great sea of all sorts of folks from all over the place ~ many of them still pagan!

Their early and frequent use of the printing press gives them an apparent strength the reality would not support.

8 posted on 05/12/2011 2:58:11 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
I was waiting for the other shoe to drop.

We knew that was coming, in fact it is probably the reason the book was written in the first place.

9 posted on 05/12/2011 3:04:02 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

After Menéndez had signed a contract with the Crown for his colonization effort, the Spanish discovered that Huguenots — Protestant settlers from France — had already set up a settlement on the Florida coast. In 1565 Menéndez, arriving with colonists and soldiers from Spain, oversaw an attack on the French settlement and coolly ordered the slaying of most of the male colonists, in part out of anti-Protestant zealotry.

Philip II, the Spanish monarch who also ruled the powerful Hapsburg empire, later voiced approval of the executions less because the Huguenots were colonial rivals than because they were, in Philip’s eyes, religious heretics.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-twoworlds/1680


10 posted on 05/12/2011 3:24:05 PM PDT by ansel12 ( JIM DEMINT "I believe [Palins] done more for the Republican Party than anyone since Ronald Reagan")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Hahahaha!! let’s start talking about the catholic church persecutions


11 posted on 05/12/2011 3:30:01 PM PDT by antonia (A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R. Murrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fiddlerselbow

Hahahaha!! let’s start talking about the catholic church and it’s involvements with forced conversions!!


12 posted on 05/12/2011 3:31:39 PM PDT by antonia (A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R. Murrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Did someone force them to get on the boat and come to America? Perhaps a Benevolent Catholic Dictatorship would have been more to their liking.
13 posted on 05/12/2011 3:33:16 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Then there was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, when as many as 30,000 Huguenots (Protestants) were slaughtered in France. Many of the surviving Protestants fled with only the clothes on their backs, and they or their descendants settled in England, Prussia, South Africa, and the American colonies. In each of those places, they contributed powerfully to the economy and culture. For instance, the founder of Du Pond was a Huguenot.


14 posted on 05/12/2011 3:48:59 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Oops. Make that Du Pont, the chemical manufacturer.


15 posted on 05/12/2011 3:50:05 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Thank God for the people that founded the United States of America, the greatest nation ever created.


16 posted on 05/12/2011 3:55:06 PM PDT by ansel12 ( JIM DEMINT "I believe [Palins] done more for the Republican Party than anyone since Ronald Reagan")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Thank God for the people that founded the United States of America, the greatest nation ever created.

Amen, and Amen!

The Protestant Reformation, the "Presbyterian Rebellion", and the Founding of America
Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence
July 4th -- Happy "Presbyterian Rebellion" Day!
Sources of American Federalism: Founders, Reformers & Ancient Hebrews
America’s Constitutional Foundation of Biblical Covenant
Reformation Faith & Representative Democracy
A Moral Vision [Oliver Cromwell, the American Revolution, and Pluralism]

John Calvin, Calvinism, and the founding of America
Calvin's 500th Birthday Celebrated: Critics and Supporters Agree He was America's Founding Father
AMERICA AND JOHN CALVIN
America's debt to John Calvin
Lessons to be learned from Reformation
Theocracy: the Origin of American Democracy
Calvinistic America
American Government and Christianity - America's Christian Roots
The Faith of the Founders, How Christian Were They
John Calvin: Religious liberty and Political liberty
Abraham Kuyper on American Liberty
The Man Who Founded America
The Puritans and the founding of America
Perhaps Puritans weren't all that bad
Who were the Puritans?
Bible Battles: King James vs. the Puritans
The Heirs of Puritanism: That's Us!
The real Puritan legacy
In Praise of a Puritan America
Are new 'Puritans' gaining?
Foundations of Faith [Harvard's "Memorial Church" and the university's Puritan roots]
Bounty of Freedom [Puritans, Yankees, the Constitution, and Libertarianism]
The Pilgrims and the founding of America
Thanking the Puritans on Thanksgiving: Pilgrims' politics and American virtue
New World, New Ideas: What the Pilgrims and Puritans believed, about God and man and giving thanks
Pilgrims in Providence
A time for thanks
Judge reminds: Faith ‘permeated our culture’ since the Pilgrims
In its 400th year, Jamestown aspires to Plymouth's prominence [huzzah for the Pilgrims!]
Rock of Ages and the rebel pilgrims [understanding the times re Augustus Toplady's famous hymn]

17 posted on 05/12/2011 4:09:08 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer
She told CNA that from 1830 to 1860 in particular, movements such as the “Protestant Crusade” attempted to stop the spread of Catholicism in the United States.

I have always heard the protestants were crusading against slavery in that time frame. Maybe hindsight isn't always that good...revisionism anyone?

18 posted on 05/12/2011 4:27:20 PM PDT by LearnsFromMistakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The Spanish printed and distributed catechisms much earlier, and were also more “inculturated” - that is, they accepted some harmless customs but not others (such as polygamy, or a particularly violent game that Florida natives played and which resulted in numerous deaths every time they played it). They were doing quite well among the Indians until the British from SC and Georgia attacked them (for harboring escaped African slaves) and destroyed St Augustine and the entire mission chain, killing the Indians and mission priests in the course of this. The British also enslaved between 10,000 and 13,000 Indians, sending most of them off to work in British Caribbean sugar plantations and mills.

When it was clear that Florida was going to become part of the US, and then when it became a territory, one of the first stated objectives of Andrew Jackson (who had already attacked it several times) was to de-Hispanicize and de-Catholicize it.

The Indians left for Cuba with the Spanish when the Florida was handed over to the US, because they would have been enslaved otherwise. Blacks also left, although Thomas Jefferson around 1811-1812 had forced the Spanish to stop accepting and freeing runaway slaves. Spanish Florida had a large black Catholic population which, like its Catholic Indian population, was a target for British-descended Southerners.

The Irish, of course, married anybody who was Catholic, so they could be Irish-Spanish, Irish-Indian, or Irish-African. But whatever they were, the British-descended Protestants hated them and tried to wipe them out.

This happened in both Florida and California. There was definitely racism involved, and there is no way of denying the anti-Catholicism.

As for the Puritans, they came here to set up a Utopian community that for most of us would have been like living with Jim Jones or some flake waiting on a hilltop for the Rapture. But in virtually no time at all, they had their first rebellions (by people in the group, such as Roger Williams) and were forced to abandon some of their exclusivity and cultishness. It’s a pity that the descendants of the Puritans ended up being....ta da...UU’s (Unitarian-Universalists), and that’s only on a good day. The rest of the time they are flat out Marxist secularists.

I know many UU’s and they’re very sweet and clueless. But it’s odd that such a rigorist cult should have ended up with such descendants, ranging from the spineless to people who would gladly clap you into a “reschooling” program at the local concentration camp.


19 posted on 05/12/2011 4:40:28 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

muawiyah,
I was not trying to be arch or smarmy. I can, however, say that I understand what you’re saying. History does record, elsewhere, the comings and goings of various anti-this and anti-that groups. My family, on one side, is Melungeon and Cherokee. To further confuse things, on the other side, Scottish and Swedish. Racism and religious persecution happened, even here. The more important fact, is that we, as a country, largely got over all of that garbage. And really, without any desire to sound snide or silly, all of us, you, me, and others, could stand to get over it. You are here. As am I. We live in the greatest country the world has ever known. The fact that the past has blemishes does not remove the beauty of the land we live in.


20 posted on 05/12/2011 4:50:35 PM PDT by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Paddys would then go on to found the most corrupt, patronage filled machines in the US, and found the first Asian exclusion societies in America, andl lead lynchings of blacks in New York, Omaha, St. Paul, and Philadelphia, amongst other locales. Yeah, the Donks were a really oppressed group...

Rhode Island has been majority Catholic for over a century. Hasn't stopped them from electing cretins election cycle after election cycle.

21 posted on 05/12/2011 5:00:47 PM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
Well, no doubt it was all bad. Frankly all too many of my own ancestors were brought here by their colonial masters with the idea they'd work for free.

However, the English were NOT in Carolana (what it was called at the time), nor in Virginia, nor in New England and yet the Spanish persisted in this idea that one of their missions in life was to simply exterminate any Huguenot (Protestant) settlers who showed upon the East coast.

I gather the Spanish were not particularly influenced by local signs of anti-Catholicism (way back then).

Actually, there was a Protestant movement or two that took place in Spain. Most such folks ESCAPED to nearby France, or to England, or even to the Americas.

Pizzaro and his crowd were MOSTLY (not totally) Protestant in inclination. They were eventually suppressed by the Spanish Crown ~ many of them were subjected to torture, then were sliced up and their body parts tossed to the dogs which is almost certainly a sign Mother Church didn't consider them to be good Catholics eh!

A later expedition into "La Florida" appears to have had both Protestant and Catholic members ~ DeSoto's group had folks handpicked by his champions in Madrid ~ who can only be described as having Huguenot interests at heart (rather than Catholic interests), although that would be better described as French vs Spanish interests.

Part of the problem in digging up information on the Protestant cause in Spain is the Spanish crown was fairly successful in killing them, or driving them away.

At the same time the Spanish empire suddenly became so enormous Protestants, and Moors, and even Jews could escape into that frontier and simply disappear.

So, let's go all the way to the top to the Spanish court itself. Half those people were blood relatives of Rene d'Anjou ~ his great grandsons had actually founded what turned out to be the two major political factions in the French Religious Wars ~ the de Guise (Rene was, of course the Duc du Guise himself, but from an earlier time), and the political arm of the Huguenot (Protestant) movement.

Although those wars were yet to come (1514) the political divisions in the Spanish court closely reflected the political divisions in the very related French court.

The Protestants in France put off their Doomesday until the 1600s. Those in Spain were not so lucky.

In the end an exceedingly large percentage of the French Protestant families moved to America and became remarkably important to the development of our system of government ~ several Huguenots were very instrumental in writing the Bill of Rights for example.

We need not go into all the personalities of course, but the Religious Wars of the 1500s were more political than religious in nature, and by the 1600s, the French, very much dominated by Catholic interests, was allied to the Swedish Empire, then the epitome of Protestant belief.

Together those two powerful states CARVED UP EUROPE and pretty much killed most of the people in the German speaking areas.

Ever wonder why Italy didn't manage to follow up on its early discoveries in the New World? Check Religious Wars and 30 Years War. They turned into a backwater in that period.

Bringing up the notion that America was somehow peculiar, or mean, because there was some anti-Catholicism lurking around in the 1800s does nothing but draw upon a set of emotions and a body of politics that was supposedly put at rest through the mechanism of the Peace of Westphalia ~ which established the concept of the modern nation-state.

It was Jefferson himself, hardly pro-Catholic, who set in motion the very idea that Catholics should be free to immigrate into America.

Frankly, I'm still waiting on my reparations check from the Spanish ~ that'd better come quick before I run out of money.

22 posted on 05/12/2011 5:35:02 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: livius
The Puritans turned into the Church of Christ of that special brand the Reverend Wright likes to peddle. The UU were created independently, but mostly by a crowd who'd been Puritan but weren't any more.

We still have troubles with the Puritans.

23 posted on 05/12/2011 5:38:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

There were NO Huguenots in the South after their one-month residence in what is now Jacksonville, where they were sent by the French king (a Catholic but considered to be a crypto-Protestant) as a combined militar and settlement expedition to set up a base from which the French could attack the Spanish treasure fleets and hopefully seize the land claimed and explored by the Spanish 50 years earlier.

The Huguenots at that time were mostly Normans, a seafaring people, and this was one of the reasons that most of the original “Pirates of the Caribbean” were actually Protestants. They roamed the area attacking the Spanish and Catholic communities in general, and in fact one of the reasons that Haiti is French is that a group of French Protestant pirates had settled there. The Spanish were never able to drive them off Hispaniola, because it was a remote location and the Spanish king would never cut loose with enough money to fund a serious attack. Eventually the pirate town became simply another French town, and that was the birth of Haiti. But look at Haiti, a basket case, and the now prosperous Dominican Republic (with virtually the same heavily African ethnic component) and you’ll see what lousy settlers the French were!

Huguenots came back into the South from the north many, many decades if not centuries later.

BTW, the Catholic Carroll set up the first truly free, non-confessional community in the US in what is now Maryland. His grandson converted to Anglicanism after marrying an Anglican and immediately started to attack Catholics and in fact revoked the tolerance acts put in place under Carroll.

And the poor UU’s are nuts. I know some very nice elderly UU’s, but they’re all living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.


24 posted on 05/12/2011 5:57:47 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: livius

The Huguenot settlers were mostly women and children.


25 posted on 05/12/2011 6:00:50 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: livius
I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that the Huguenots were ever predominantly "Norman". The fellows over in Brittany and along the Loire were hardly "Norman" ~ and the greater percentage of them actually hailed from South Eastern France, butt up against Switzerland and parts of what are now Italy.

The top end leadership were all noblemen or related to noblemen, and initially during the very beginning of The Religious wars, they were all members of the royal family itself ~ in France, change always starts at the top.

I think you are confounding the Castle at Saumur with something that never existed ~ to wit, a Norman kingdom that extended down into Anjou ~ which, for a number of centuries, ruled Great Britain like it was a banana republic colony!

26 posted on 05/12/2011 6:06:06 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: livius
Maryland was a special case ~ the Indians couldn't get to it, so the main thrust of British settlement shifted quickly from Virginia to Maryland.

Now, about the Maryland Catholics, if you are a decendant of the Maryland Murphy family, or McConnell family, or Smallwood family, or Dorsey/Darsey family, or several others ~ you have both Roman Catholic and Protestant antecedents.

The loss of Official Toleration in Maryland also meant Catholic land titles were no good ~ numerous Protestants in the region immediately MARRIED INTO those families to protect the property from division by evil doers from England.

In the old families that tradition has continued down to today. Even St. Mary's City folks have happily moved off to distant colonies with Catholic and Protestant cousins in tow.

The urge from England was probably anti-Catholic, but the response in America was to protect friends, family and neighbors ~ which is pretty much a "nationalist" impulse.

27 posted on 05/12/2011 6:12:40 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**Rhode Island lawmakers voted last week to pardon an Irish Catholic man they say was wrongfully executed in 1845. The decision closes an ugly chapter in the long history of discrimination against Catholics in the U.S.**

Makes one wonder how many other Catholics were wrongfully executed during this era?????


28 posted on 05/12/2011 6:21:30 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**Rhode Island lawmakers voted last week to pardon an Irish Catholic man they say was wrongfully executed in 1845. The decision closes an ugly chapter in the long history of discrimination against Catholics in the U.S.**

Makes one wonder how many other Catholics were wrongfully executed during this era?????


29 posted on 05/12/2011 6:24:09 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
They had SLAVERY in that period of time. Standards of evidence were far different from what we demand these days.

Of interest, Rhode Island is overwhelmingly Catholic, and when you add in the Episcopals, there's almost nobody else there!

It hasn't had any executions since the 1840s so this guy was among the last.

I'm not convinced he's innocent though.

30 posted on 05/12/2011 6:41:03 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Regarding the writer, things to watch out for ~ she switches from the "sins of New England" to the "possible sins of Rhode Island" and back several times.

Rhode Island abolished the death penalty a century and a half ago. Yet, she tries to protray that state as being particularly bloodthirsty.

Just doesn't compute.

Her statement on the Ku Klux Klan is equally irresponsible. She claims the modern KKK, found all over New England in every village and town (/s) (wink, wink), is a carry over from New York's "Know Nothing" movement.

How about this, the KKK, which is not now part of New England history, nor was it ever part of that history, has its origins in "THE SOUF'" long after the Know Nothings were out of business.

In fact, it is generally conceded that the KKK is a POST CIVIL WAR deal.

To leap from that woman's very confused view of American history to the question of how many Catholics might have been wrongfully executed is not a good idea.

It's probable that any Catholics who were wrongfully executed were, in fact, wrongfully executed. On the other hand, after 1845 or thereabouts, NO Catholics were executed in Rhode Island except by the MOB, and it was big time. The bay out there is a veritable rogues gallery of Mafioso encased in concrete suits!

What the Rhode Islanders did was to PRIVATIZE EXECUTIONS ~ and maybe some of the bad guys killed by other bad guys were actually good guys ~ but probably not.

31 posted on 05/12/2011 6:55:16 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Schultz also noted that Gordon’s hanging in 1845 came just nine years before a gift of a block of marble from Pope Pius IX for the construction of the Washington Monument “was thrown into the Potomac River” by members of the anti-Catholic “Know-Nothing” party.

Sad, the institutionalized anti-Catholic hatred still lasts today among some..

32 posted on 05/13/2011 1:05:31 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Schultz said that the Ku Klux Klan and the American Protective Association were 20th century remnants of the Know Nothing Party. .

That's pretty well known, I thought.

33 posted on 05/13/2011 1:06:10 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
St. Bart's massacre -- now have you read the history behind that?

let's trace the Huguenots, shall we. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views

however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics.

So, instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate. Incidently, until this time the Huguenots were increasing, like the Moslems in Bradford, but then they started to get shrill and wake people up with their attacks

This polemic was an attack and the Huguenots started this retaliation.This was in 1534

Next, came the French wars of religion in which the Huguenots conspired against the King. This, added to the previous attack meant that they now publically came to attack the conservative forces. The progressives of the Huguenots were the precursors of the Revolutionaires

The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool

A group of Huguenots tried to kidnap the Prince Francis II when his father died -- causing more antagonism.

Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots

Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost

Now, let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)

now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side

So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction

so, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves. the Huguenots after doing their persecuting of Catholics, got retaliation, then they went to England and many to South Africa where they were among the racists enforcing Apartheid.

Many came to the US and Germany as well.

In England and Germany they were Calvinists in non-Calvinist lands, but no "persecution". In the US they were one of many and no, no "persecutions". In South Africa they were one of the folks doing the persecutions and in Northern Germany they enthusiastically participated in the Kulturkampf.

what persecution did they face once they left France?

As shown above (and you can check the facts for yourself), the Huguenots were the one who bit the hand that fed them, then launched the first attacks, started a civil war and then lost

They were like the Moslems in present day France -- slowly starting, making nice noises, but then attacking Christian churchs and finally starting a civil war.

They lost, tough luck --- the losers in the 1500s were not given much graces, yet they were allowed to stay with the same acts of tolerance AFTER losing politically. Yet they continued supporting political intrigues and there was a political massacre.

The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.

It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time

The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king. After this, one branch became the persecutors in South Africa, another branch, many would have joined the KKK (I'm not implying all by any means, but many)

Do read the history, thanks

34 posted on 05/13/2011 1:48:03 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: antonia; fiddlerselbow

Let’s talk about the past 150 years — modern times, the Industrial age, age of enlightenment —> Catholics were targetted in the Prussian KulturKampf, but more to the point, persecution IN the USA. This was not govt sanctioned in any way of course, but the Know-Nothings are a blot on the history of our nation, as are their descendents the KKK


35 posted on 05/13/2011 1:49:45 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; livius
Ever wonder why Italy didn't manage to follow up on its early discoveries in the New World? Check Religious Wars and 30 Years War. They turned into a backwater in that period.

Italy didn't because it's ports are in the Mediterranean and Italy didn't discover the new world -- Italians did but flying under the flag of Spain or Portugal -- both Atlantic facing powers

In the entire thrust of History you see different forces that move nations

In Sumeria and Harappa and the Nile what was important was to be on a river, not near the sea

At the time of Sargon II to Alexander the important thing was to control the land passages.

Then the Eastern Mediterranean opened up (or rather it always was, but now it became strategically important) and Italia was a back-water

But then, as the Western Mediterranean and British tin trade grew, Italy with it's ports on both the east and west was now strategically important, hence the importance of Rome AND Carthage

But this lasted until Columbus discovered America -- remember that in 1400, the population of England+Wales was 2.5 million, Scotland was 0.5 million and Ireland the same, all of Germania + the Netherlands was 12 million and France was 12 million too --> but much of France's population was near the south as it had always been. Ditto for Spain and Italy's population was comparatively huge - 11 to 12 million and with massive trading powers in Pisa, Genoa, Naples and Venice.

Italia (I use that as Italy was not a united country then until the 1800s) declined for the same reason that other Mediterranean powers declined -- the world passed by them.

Italy was not involved in the 30 years or religious wars and was hardly affected by the Reformation, so their decline, was, as I stated, purely because the trading region passed them by

36 posted on 05/13/2011 2:05:04 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; livius
you are right about France and Spain carving up the Germanic states but they did not "carve up Europe" -- the British Isles were dominated by the English, Scandanavia still had the weak Danish-Norwegian joint kingdom, Spain still existed as a separate country, Italy was left to it's own devices as it wasn't involved in the 30 years war, the Balkans were where the Austrians were fighting the Ottomans who were about to overrun Europe with their Hungarian Calvinist ally and this would continue until the Ottomans were defeated at the gates of Vienna on Sep 12 1683 (9/12)

the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was still in control of her territory that includes most of what is now Poland, Lithuania, Kaliningrad, Belarus, Western Ukraine, Bessarabia etc.

The only "carving up" was the Germanic lands and the real victors were the Swedes. The French just got a divided Germany (which was a big win for them).

Finally, these two states didn't "pretty much killed most of the people in the German speaking areas." -->Neither France nor Sweden can be blamed for what the Germanics did to themselves

Again, the population loss, while huge was not "most of the people" -- the reduction in population is estimated at 15% to 30% including deaths due to disease and of course the scorched Earth policies etc. The Peace of Westphalia did not give the concept of the nation-state. That was more formed due to the French Revolution and in the middle 1800s.

until the middle 1800s, you could be "French" or "Russian" or "British" and speak "Breton" or "Polish" or "Welsh", but by the mid to late 1800s there was a drive to stamp out this and make the states one in language, etc. etc.

37 posted on 05/13/2011 2:24:57 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: livius
But look at Haiti, a basket case, and the now prosperous Dominican Republic (with virtually the same heavily African ethnic component) and you’ll see what lousy settlers the French were!

True, and the Dominicans have a strong, proud culture, a positive one, not the Haitian one...

38 posted on 05/13/2011 2:27:29 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Yeah, the Swedes and French can be blamed for what happened in the German speaking areas. They reduced the ratio to 1 man for 15 women, and the number of women had been reduced as well.

That quickly gets you into the sort of math that shows a loss of MORE THAN HALF the population.

If you rely only on the infrequent censuses taken in the region you'll get different numbers. The ratio tells the story.

39 posted on 05/13/2011 4:55:44 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
In 1648 the Peace of Westphalia RECOGNIZED the right of a nationstate to BE a sovereign nationstate in the modern sense.

When the American colonies were liberated in the 1770/80 period the standards set in that corpus guided the minds of the writers of the Treaty of Paris.

By the mid 1800s (long after the French Revolution) I doubt they even thought all that much about Westphalia anymore. Nations were nations!

You really have to go back to the 1600s for the full sovereignty idea ~ 200 years later it was certainly in full flower ~ even Latin American "nations" had arisen out of the wreckage of the Spanish Empire (and that, itself, was a guide to the 1960s when the Brits and French Empires were disposed of like rubbish).

I think what's happening here is you slipped a cog and missed that ever critical "8" when you meant "6".

I'm still trying to figure out when the Kalmar Union reasserted itself in a "weak" Norwegian-Danish whatever ~ at any time AFTER Agustus Adulphus ~ just not in there guy!

Once DeLaGardie reorganized the Swedish Army there was no turning back ~ the Swedes kicked butt everywhere they went and there was ONLY the Swedish Empire in the North, with vassal states in the South.

Too bad they wasted it in the late 1700s, but there you have it.

40 posted on 05/13/2011 5:06:28 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; antonia; fiddlerselbow
The Know Nothings were a New York phenomenon that occurred BEFORE the Civil War.

The KKK was a Southern phenomenon that occurred AFTER the Civil War.

I suppose you might draw some parallels between the two, but the one is not father to the other.

41 posted on 05/13/2011 5:11:21 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
BTW, that's just one theory about the fall of the Italian peninsula. My own favorite theory is that with the Westward advance of the Ottomans in the 1400s, and a continuation of that advance on into the 1500s, all your up and coming young bucks in Italia LEFT for greener pastures!

Certainly the Spanish Empire had the welcome mat out.

There was also the Portuguese Empire, France, and, of course, England and it's interests. Indonesia certainly had room for aggressive young Europeans.

42 posted on 05/13/2011 5:17:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Your argument neglects the fact that France and Spain had several treaties that effectively allowed French settlers to settle on Spanish lands in America and do business directly with Spanish traders and merchants.

Mendoza violated the treaties when he ran off the Huguenots and murdered all the women and children. He particularly liked to kill children.

43 posted on 05/13/2011 5:20:15 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Your ingenious and twisted revisionist history of the Huguenots reads like the National Socialist propaganda which demonized the Jews. In both cases, a persecuted minority is depicted as having somehow provoked its own demise.

I can't dignify your rant by refuting every point, but here are a few facts: 1) Religious minorities often seek assistance from co-religionists in foreign powers. The English Catholics looked to Spain. That's one reason they were persecuted under Elizabeth in England, because England was fighting for its life against His Catholic Majesty Philip of Spain. 2) There isn't a single religious or ethnic group which has not persecuted, massacred, or enslaved members of another group. To portray the Huguenots as some uniquely evil tribe which caused trouble everywhere they went is absurd. Because of the Protestant stress on self-control, literacy, thrift, and honesty, Huguenots and other Protestants tended to progress economically more than Catholics. The Industrial Revolution was largely the work of Protestants. The original American Republic was largely founded by and populated by British-American Protestants, building on historical developments in Protestant Britain. The expulsion of the educated, progressive Huguenots was a major reason why France was unable to establish a limited Republican govt. 3) The Irish Catholics have concocted a self-pitying hype about alleged persecution in America. Irish immigrants had a hard time, but largely because they were uneducated, unskilled peasants. There was little available for such people in a largely agricultural 19th century American society but brutal, exhausting, unsafe toil. The stories of signs reading "Irish need not apply" have been shown to be mythical.

The article in the OP is obviously written to push the cause of "tolerance" toward illegal Hispanic immigration. If not stopped, that trend will destroy what little is left of limited republican govt. in America.

44 posted on 05/13/2011 5:20:35 AM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The Know-nothings may have originated in New York in 1843 but it spread to other states as the Native American Party and became a national party in 1845. In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party

In the Election of 1856 it was bitterly divided over slavery. It won 23% of the popular vote and carried one state, Maryland, with eight electoral votes. The pro-slavery wing of the American Party remained strong on the local and state levels in a few southern states,

here is a North American review from 1924 that points out the links between the know-nothings and the KKK

Our national history shows phenomena of more o r less identical type appearing at recurrent intervals, and with astonishing regularity. This is especially the case with the present phenomenon known as the Klu Klux Klan. With the possible exception of masks, robes and other like paraphernalia, it is an almost complete replica of the old Know Nothing movement of the 'fifties of the last century. It professes the same objects, and uses nearly the same methods. Pessimistic citizens of the present day, who look upon our country as going fast and straight to destruction, should remember this fact and take courage.

45 posted on 05/13/2011 5:23:07 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
A persecuted minority? like the Moslems in Bradford and France today, the Huguenots were the same

If you want to check history, check the facts for yourself. If you don't, here they are:

  1. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views

  2. however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics. --> note, this is in the 1500s, and the King is tolerant of them, quite rare in the 1500s until the 1800s or 1900s in fact, but what do the Huguenots do? They post a placard right outside his door, cocking their noses at him so to speak

  3. instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate.

  4. In the French wars of Religion, the Huguenots conspired against the King. The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool

  5. Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots

  6. Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost

  7. let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)

    now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side

    So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction

o, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.

46 posted on 05/13/2011 5:30:18 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
1. hellb Religious minorities often seek assistance from co-religionists in foreign powers. The English Catholics looked to Spain. That's one reason they were persecuted under Elizabeth in England, because England was fighting for its life against His Catholic Majesty Philip of Spain. --> true, and there were massacres of Catholics in Anglican England, in Lutheran Germanic states and in Calvinist Netherlands etc. St. Barts was not unusual as you point out

2. hellb: There isn't a single religious or ethnic group which has not persecuted, massacred, or enslaved members of another group -- true again. The Huguenots did that to Catholics in areas of France where they were the majority and repeated doing the same in Prussia, South Africa, the Netherlands, England etc.

3. hellb: To portray the Huguenots as some uniquely evil tribe which caused trouble everywhere they went is absurd. -- I apologize if that is the image conveyed, it is not what I meant, I point out, just as you that they persecuted and were persecuted and to point out the historical reasons for St. Barts which show this to be more

  1. what happened in those days and
  2. socio-political to a large extent

47 posted on 05/13/2011 5:36:04 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Your account of the Massacre tends to collapse the history a bit.

Huguenots had been FLEEING FRANCE since the mid 1500s and would continue to do so right up to the reign of Louis XV ~ who, among other things, was so liberal (for his time) he franchised Jews to the extent they could bear arms (which meant they could now legally defend themselves in court and bear witness against criminals) ~ and SERVE IN THE FRENCH ARMY.

There are Jews among the White Coats who sought to keep out the British invaders in New France in and about 1754. It was a great time of liberation. Louis XVI continued with the reforms and became an American ally in the Revolutionary War. Afterward Louis XVI fell on hard times when his former political allies in France (mostly his cousins) allowed him to be executed.

Most Huguenots ended up going to nearby countries throughout Europe which were dominated by Protestants, or where Protestants were tolerated. As America opened up, they came here in vast numbers.

48 posted on 05/13/2011 5:39:32 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

So, do note — there were historical and socio-political reasons for this revenge attacks since the Huguenots supported one political side — the side that lost. The range of people dead is also between 5,000 to 30,000 — no one knows for sure and even the lower end figure of 5,000 is too high to modern eyes, yes.


49 posted on 05/13/2011 5:39:53 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Cronos, I'm sure some folks take comfort from an idea (even though false) that Catholics were as persecuted by the Know Nothings as Blacks were by their slave masters ~ but that glosses over so much it isn't worth debating.

Fur Shur more blacks were lynched by the KKK than Catholics by Protestants in America ~ by a factor of 100,000 I am sure!

The Know Nothings were a political party. The KKK sought to deprive blacks of all civil rights ~ and they enforced their ambitions with murder.

Now, let's turn our attention to Mexico ~ as I recall Sam Huston and other American Protestants were FORCED by Mexico to become Catholics in order to be allowed to settle Tejas!

This was way back there in the 1830/40 period.

Now there's a REAL "Know Nothing"/"Catholic" situation ~ but you will find, if you dig deep enough, that the Protestant dominated United States of America backed the Roman Catholic Republic of Texas to the hilt in their efforts to free themselves from the corrupt rule of Santa Anna!

This stuff was current news in those days and it could not help but fire the flames of bigotry and prejudice of the time.

I'd suggest you take up the greater part of the argument set forth by this author with the MEXICAN government ~ ask them for reparations for the FORCED CONVERSIONS!!!!

50 posted on 05/13/2011 5:49:18 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson