Yale University Library

39002002550482

3h

^%|TAffi^

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE PAPAL ANANIAS CLUB

AND

PAROCHIAL SCHOOL
FALLACIES

HIBERNIAN ORATORY PUNCTURED

By ROBERT J. LONG
Editor of The American Citizen
East Orange, N. J.

PUBLISHED BY
THE MENACE PUBLISHING COMPANY
AURORA, MO.

Entered, According to Act of Congress,
In the OflSce of the Librarian, at Washington, D. C. , 1900.

CONTENTS

American Party, The, and "Knownothings''  120
Barry, Commodore, and Gen. Moylan  14-15
Carroll, Charles, and George Washington  122
Carrolls, The — Charles and the Bishop  no- 113
Colonial Laws Against Popery  118-119
Columbus — His Discoveries and Character  63-79
Declaration of Independence — Rehgion of the Signers. . . 124
DeKalb, Baron, and His Religion  29
Dongan, Governor of Ne-w York  109-110
Draft Riots in New York  23-28
General Commanders in the Ci-vil War  124
Generals in the Revolutio nary War  125
Grant, U. S. — ^Views and Enemies  43-47
Henry, Patrick — ^Race and Religion  32
Hughes, Archbishop, and His Record  21-22
Huguenots Massacred in Florida  125
Irish Deserters in Civil War  94
Irish in the Revolutionary War  116-117
Irish Romanists ia the Ci-vil War  93-100
Indian Cruelties Incited by Jesuits  126
Isabella, Queen, and Her Record  78-82
Kernan, Francis, and Charles O'Connor  16-17
Kosciusko and Pulaski  13
Lafayette and His Attitude  10
Lincoln's Assassins  49-55
Meagher and His "Irish Brigade"  15-16
Mexican War of 1847 and Popery  104-108
Montgomery, Stark, and Wayne  36-38
Pope Pius and Jefierson Da-vis  83-93
Race Ability, According to U. S. Senator Lodge  40
Religious Liberty in Maryland  55-56
Roman Catholics of Prominence in the U. S  7
Romanists in the Revolutionary War  32-33
Sherman, Gen. W. T., and His Religion  loi
Slavery and Popery  '30
Spain and Her Help to the United States  ^ '3
Sullivans, The, of Revolutionary Fame  33
Washington, George — Attempt to Poison  132
Washington's Real Words About Putting Americans
on Guard  ^27
Winthrop, Governor, and Popery  132
Witchcraft and Popery  ^32
3

Parochial School History.
One of the most amusing, and yet ofttimes one of
the most pathetic occurrences of our time, is the con
stantly-recurring incident of an Irish Roman Catholic
newspaper-writer or lecturer — priest or layman — en
deavoring to prove to his eager listeners of the same na
tionality and faith, or endeavoring to convince very credu
lous Protestant Americans, that about everything notable
that has happened in connection with the history of North
America, from the time of Columbus to our day, has been
through the instrumentality of some Hibernian follower
of the infallible (i") pope. In fact, these ardent believ
ers in the prowess of their countrymen are not content
with going back to 1492, but they carry us back to centu
ries before, and claim that a monk named St. Brendan,
before the year 1000, sailed from Ireland on a voyage of
discovery, and took possession of this fair land in the
name of his papal master at Rome. The claim was also
made not longer ago than in May, 1896, by a priest, that
the two first men to land from the ship of Columbus,
were Irishmen, and he gave with much exactness (?) their
names in full. Probably not all Roman Catholics believe
this, for we are told by the Meriden, Conn., Record, of
May 25, 1896, that in an " eloquent" lecture in the Opera
House in that city the evening before, by " Henry Austin
5

Adams, a recent convert " (and not an Irishman), Mr,
Adams " poured out eloquent language," and made this
statement : —
" Mr. Brooks of Boston had recently issued a book in which he
proved that the name of the first men to land on San Salvador with
Columbus, stripped of their Italian endings, were Maguire and Mo
ran, two Irishmen, and there was no record where they had ever
transferred one acre of this continent to any one."
This was, no doubt, intended to be facetious, and at
the expense of two political bosses of Boston ; but the
statement is actually made by Roman Catholic orators
that the first man to land in 1492 was an Irishman ; while
others state that " the first man to land was two Irishmen."
Later on we will discuss the claim of our Roman
Catholic friends that this country was " discovered by a
Catholic who was furnished with funds by a Catholic
Queen and blessed by a Catholic Pope," taking the evi
dence of some of our best historians to controvert these
claims. We shall also refer to that oft-exploded fallacy
that " Catholic Maryland was the first to grant civil and
religious liberty in this country," and to other equally-fal
lacious and ridiculous claims in regard to Jesuit explor
ers, etc., etc.
We will take up first in this series of papers, the
names of men who are held up to our gaze week after
week as " Catholic heroes, statesmen, and scholars," —
and here is where the pathetic side of the discussion
reveals itself.
For more than a hundred years the Irish Roman Cath
olics have been coming to this country in larger or small
er numbers, until now their writers claim that there are
in the United States fully twenty millions of this one race
and religion, counting of course the natives of Ireland
and their immediate descendants. The sad side of the

picture is here : That owing to their religious environ
ment at home — the gross neglect of education which is
due to their church and her position that " education is
only for the few, while ignorance is for the many " —
owing to their cruel treatment by the priesthood whom
they reverence and even deify, the Irish race in the United
States has up to date produced but two eThinent men !
Hence the pathos of the constant struggle of orator and
•¦writer to make a showing of great men — even going so
far as to borrow men from every other race, and espe
cially from a " heretic " religion, so as to produce some
thing respectable on the credit side of the ledger. One
is so greatly saddened by this unhappy showing, that a
disposition to overlook fable and romance and misstate
ment is everjrwhere apparent. And yet in the interest of
truth — and to save our unfortunate Irish friends from
the ridicule brought often upon themselves by what may
be called their " parochial-school history " — we under
take to correct a few of their errors.
It should be emphasized here Ihat no other national
ity or religion has to any extent entered upon this course
of self-glorification. In a lengthy article in the Century for September,
1891, entitled " The Ruling Races," Hon. Henry Cabot
Lodge showed by statistics that in the " distribution of
ability " according to race, the Roman Catholic Irish, de
spite their large immigration into this country, stood ex
ceedingly low in the scale. Mr. Lodge was violently at
tacked by Roman Catholic critics, and in the Century for
July, 1892, justified his contention by showing that of
the 317 names of eminent Americans mentioned in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 248 are of English descent,
16 Scotch, 16 Scotch Irish, 15 Huguenot, 7 Dutch, 6
German, 3 French, 2 Welsh, i Swiss, i Spanish, and out

of the whole mass of Irish in this country, only two have
distinguished themselves — both military men.
We have no comment to make on the above, except
to remark that this accounts for the omniverous greed of
the Irish Roman Catholics in seizing upon men of all
other races and religions to illustrate their contention that
they alone have done glorious deeds in this country.
The Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, of the date of
June 6, 1896, devoted its entire issue to what it termed
" An Exposure of the A. P. A.," and under the heading
" Catholic Heroes and Statesmen," printed the following
remarkable list : —

Archbishop Carroll, of Baltimore.
Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
Gen. Casimir Fulaski.
Gen. Stephen Moylan, Washing
ton's aide.
Commodore John Barry, Father
of the American Navy.
General Lafayette.
Admiral Rocbambeau.
General Kosciusko.
General DeKalb.
Admiral La Grasse.
Thomas Fitzsimmons, Signer of
Constitution.
George Meade.
Chief Justice Taney.
Postmaster-General James Camp
beU.
Charles O'Conor.
Judge William Gaston.
Daniel Dougherty.
Francis Kernan.
Daniel Carroll, Signer of the Con
stitution.
Gen. Philip H. Sheridan.

Gen. William S. Rosecrans.
Gen. Don Carlos Buell.
Gen. Edw. O. C. Ord.
Gen. John Newton.
Gen. Jos. Warren Revere.
Gen. £. Parker Scammon.
Gen. Chas. P. Stone.
Gen. David S. Stanley.
Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis.
Gen. Robt. O. Tyler.
Gen. James Shields.
Gen. Thos. McCurdy -Vincent-
Gen. A. W. Whipple.
Gen. John G. Foster.
Gen. L. P. Graham.
Gen. Wm. S. Harvey.
Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher.
Gen. Charles G. Halpine.
Gen. James A. MulUgan.
Rear Admiral John C. Beaumont.
Rear Admiral Andrew A. Har-
wood.
Admiral Frauds M. Ramsay.
Admiral B. F. Sands.
Commodore John Guest.

It is needless to remark that of the above the
most distinguished are not Irish ; several are not Roman
Catholic ; several of them were simply corrupt politi
cians ; and more than half of them are not even men-

tioned among distinguished men in biographical works
supposed to contain a list of all men of prominence who
have lived in this country. Probably only two of the
above Roman Catholic Irishmen would be regarded as
eminent in any degree,— namely, Charles Carroll and Gen.
Sheridan. But this is a fair sample of the lists constant
ly brought to our notice as " eminent Irish Roman Cath
olics." Perhaps this would be a good place to begin a few
brief sketches of the " Catholic Heroes and Statesmen "
referred to in the above, after which we will take up other
" Catholic Heroes " and the general Romanist claim of
adding lustre to American history.

The Carrolls. — Charles Carroll was an exceptional
Irish Roman Catholic — rendering real service to the na
tion. But he has left no worthy successor of his race and
religion. He was an exception in that he was an edu
cated man ; he was an exception in that he was not bigot
ed. If living to-day, he would not recognize the Irish
Roman Catholics who are prominent in political life or
in church work. Perhaps he was all the better for being
in the minority — living where Protestants largely pre
dominated. Archbishop Carroll, his brother, was a nobody — he
is known simply because he lived in Revolutionary times.
The same can be said with even more emphasis of Daniel
Carroll, whose name has gone into oblivion. Many of
their descendants are Protestants. But we are willing to
concede that Charles Carroll was an eminent Roman Cath
olic, declaring, however, that if the Irish Romanists of
to-day were of the Carroll stamp, there would be no need
of an A. P. A., or other American patriotic order.

Lafayette. — That Lafayette was a Catholic, no one
will dispute; but he was not a Roman Ca.tho\ic, or papist,
or ultramontane. He was just such a Catholic as was
Juarez of Mexico, as is Diaz of Mexico. He was just
such a Catholic as are the leading men of France to-day,
— they are anti-Romanists, though attending Roman Cath
olic churches as a matter of form. Lafayette was a Free
mason, He came from France a few years after the ex
pulsion of the Jesuits from that country — which act is
said to have been approved by him. While in the United
States he invariably attended worship at Protestant church
es, and when here in 1S24, we are told by " The Memoir
of Lafayette," published in Boston that year (page 172):
" He manifested a desire to attend the religious service
of the Sabbath at the church in Brattle Street, where he
had formerly joined in worship with Bowdoin, Hancock
and Cooper." We are also told that he had refused an
invitation from Bishop Fenwick to attend Roman Catho
lic services — "at which refusal the bishop was much
hurt." Again — and there can be no doubt of the veracity
of this — on two different occasions — first to an eminent
Reformed Dutch clergyman. Rev. P. I. Van Pelt, and
afterwards to Mr. Charles Palmer, of Richmond, Va.,
Lafayette said : " It is my opinion that if the liberties of
this country — the United States of America — are de
stroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic
Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous ene
mies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated
most of the wars in Europe."
Prof. S. F. B. Morse, the noted inventor of the tele
graph, corroborates both these utterances, and adds : 
" In his speech in Parhament against the recently overthrown
government in France, in 1821, which will be found in his memoirs
Vol. II., p. 536, Lafayette said : —

II
" ' Then disappeared that clerical corporation, which, while it
exercised every species of influence, and refused to pay any share of
public contributions, was incessantly increased. No part of its im
mense wealth was ever alienated, but all was distributed in its own
class in an inverse ratio to labor.
" ' The law was a party in the exaction of vows too often com
pulsory, and France was covered with monastic orders devoted to
foreign chiefs. The clergy levied at once contributions from the rich
and poor, and in its secular organization was so wholly given over to
worldly indolence that the laboring ministers were but an insignifi
cant portion of what was called the first order of the State. . . .
What, then, are we to regret ? Have we to regret the reigning intol
erance which doomed the great portion of the population to a state
of legal concubinage, to bastardism, disinheritance ; or that violation
of all the laws of nature and morality which Louis XIV. established)
and which the illustrious prelate, Bossuet, styled the work worthy of
his reign (this was the revocation of the edict of Nantes), the most
assured sign as well as the first enactment of authority ?
•<< The bishops in 1751 and 1752 demanded its execution by the
judgment of the commandment or intendant without the form or
semblance of a trial. Such was the legal doctrine from the period of
the decree of the Council of 1694, which debarred all private per
sons from receiving into their houses any sick person of the Protest
ant religion under the pretext of charity, down to the decision of the
Coimdl of Louis XIV., when, in opposition to the advice of Turgot
and Malesherbes, the oath was taken to exterminate the heretics.
" ' The condition of the Protestants was ameliorated by the edict
of the king in 1788. I remember it the more distinctly, because in
the preceding year I had the honor of seeing adopted in committee,
at which the brother of the king presided, the first offidal admission
of their civil rights ; but even this half tolerance was considered a
revolutionary innovation.'
" Thus, sir," writes Professor Morse to Bishop Spalding, " as
early as 1788 Lafayette incurred the enmity of your corporation
while obtaining the proud distinction of striking the first blow for
rehgious liberty in France. For him was reserved the noble gratifi
cation of concocting the measures for rescuing Protestant Christiani
ty from the bloody proscription and brutal rule of an overbearing
and corrupt priesthood. In resisting the 'intolerant spirit of the
times,' sir, do you find Lafayette in league with your corporation or
in open hostility to it ? Was he Catholic (in your acceptance of the
term) or Protestant, in the best sense of that term ? "

In another speech in the French Parliament, June 23,
1828 (Memoirs, Vol. III., 409), Lafayette said : —
" Amidst the attacks of pretended defenders of the altar I arj-
sorry to observe that fanaticism which represents as hostile to the
rights and sentiments and nations the Christianity of which sodal
equality is the principal basis ; provokmg a sort of reprisal of ani
madversions against opinions and practices, which, in themselves,
have nothing in common with worldly ambition.
" If I seek a solution of this most perplexing combination of
the duties of the priest, speaking both in the name of heaven and as
the paid officer of the State, I shall find it (at least in my opinion),
only in a country where religious sentiment is more general than in
France ; where the ministers of the Gospel receive more respect ;
where all sects live in peace ; where the rites and ceremonies inspire
no alarm ; but where they are total strangers to the civil government,
and where religious sodeties, freely formed, have ministers of their
own choice." Prof. Morse remarks on this statement of Lafayette,
in reply to Bishop Spalding, who had asserted that Lafay
ette had written a letter in 1829, in direct contrast to these
views, thus : —
" And what, sir, was the Christianity he here commends to
France ? Was it that misnamed Christianity which knows not the
name of equaUty — a Christianity monopolized in a cldse corporation,
and despotically organized in the interest of the most insatiable avarice
aud worldly ambition of the few against the many ? or was it the
expansive Protestant Christianity of the United States, founded truly
on the primitive basis of social equality, and of whose benevolent
effects he had such recent experience, which, as he said to the vener
able Dr. Van Pelt, • opened his eyes ' not only to the intense bigotry
of that system of religion to which he was edacated, but to the con
trasted tolerance and humanizing influences of that which prevailed
here?" And yet as late as June 6, 1896, in The Catholic Mirror
of Baltimore, the paper controlled by Cardinal Gibbons,
the following statement was printed : —
" Another slander of the A. P. A. is a garbled quotation taken
from a letter sent by the illustrious Frenchman to a friend in New
York in 1829. Their stump-speakers give the quotation this way :

»3
' If ever the liberty of the American Repubhc is destroyed, it will be
the work of the Roman Catholic priests.' This is only a portion of
the sentence which Lafayette really wrote. We give the sentence
in full as foUows : —
" ' But I must be permitted to assure you that the fears which, in
your patriotic zeal you seem to entertain, that if ever the liberty of
the United States is destroyed, it will be by " Romish priests," are
certainly without a shadow of foundation whatever.'
" This is something qmte different."
We should say so ! But this Mirror statement is
such a bald falsehood that if that paper will prove the
truth of its quotation, we will take back all we have said
and become a Romanist. But their lie is made out of
whole cloth. If not, will they tell us where they get the
Lafayette statement which they print? We challenge
them to prove it.
After reading what we have already written concern
ing Lafayette and his religious views, one will surely be
convinced that the brave Frenchman was no more a Ro
man Catholic — or papist, rather — than was Cavour of
Italy, or Juarez of Mexico. He was a Catholic, perhaps,
in one sense, but not a Roman Catholic.
And is it not peculiar that Lafayette is always point
ed out by Irish Roman Catholic orators, as an illustration
of what they have done for this country? The fact is
well established historically that the French have invari
ably looked upon the Irish as a very inferior race — as a
little better than savages.

Kosciusko and Pulaskl — Here are two more
names frequently quoted by Irish orators in proof of what
Roman Catholics have done for this country. Of Pulas
ki little is known except that he was a brave soldier in
our Revolutionary War, and fell at Savannah. There is

14
no proof that he was a Roman Catholic ; for in his day
Poland (his own country) was fully one-fourth Protestant,
and that fourth comprised the best and most enlightened
Poles. It is simply a guess which places him in the list
printed in Cardinal Gibbons' paper.
Of Kosciusko we know more, and everything leads
us to believe that he was just such a Catholic (not Roman
Catholic) as was Lafayette. He attended Protestant ser
vices frequently — if not always — when in this country,
and during the latter part of his life (which was spent in
Switzerland), he devoted himself largely to the universal-
education ideas of Pestalozzi, with whom he was inti
mate. Universal education was no more loved and no
more popular in that day among the old-world Roman
ists than it is to-day, and Pestalozzi was not in favor with
the priests ; but Kosciusko was a great admirer and ar
dent disciple of the Swiss philosopher and educator, and
assisted him in every way possible. When Kosciusko
died, the Jesuits took possession of his body and buried
him, for he had no relatives near him. On this slight
thread — his burial in a Romanist churchyard — hangs
the theory that he was a Roman Catholic. But in prac
tice he was a Protestant.
Here is another peculiar fact — that our Irish friends
attempt to bolster up their Irish claims with two Poles —
when it is well-known that the Irish and the Poles stand
at very antipodes in sympathy and tastes.

Moylan, Stephen. — Why the name of this man 
more than that of hundreds of others equally as promi
nent and as well-known in the Revolutionary War 
should be inserted among "Irish Roman Catholic he
roes," no one is able to explain, except on the theory
that his last name has something of an Irish ring. There
is no reason to suppose that he was a Roman Catholic.

IS
Barry, Commodore John. — Why the Roman Irish
orators should persist in dubbing Jack Barry " Father of
the American Navy," is another mystery, as there is no
possible warrant for it. He was a brave officer, but not
equal in any respect to many other naval officers of Rev
olutionary times. When the list of naval officers was
prepared in 1776, he stood only seventh on the list in the
order of prominence among the captains. He was brave
and dashing, but did not rank in bravery with John Paul
(or John Paul Jones, as he chose to call himself), the
brave Scotchman ; nor did he excell in skill and bravery
Conjmgham, Manly, Barney, Williams, Biddle, and others.
Commodore Barry was a native of Ireland ; he may
have been a Roman Catholic ; but he was not the " Fa
ther of the Navy " in the sense of originating or beget
ting it. The only ground for giving him such a title is
in the fact that in 1794 he was made senior commander
in the na-vy. 
RocHAMBEAU AND La Grasse. — Thcse are two
Irish (?) Roman Catholic heroes mentioned in Cardinal
Gibbons' paper. They are said to have been Freema
sons, and were doubtless of the same way of thiiiking as
was Lafayette. They would turn over in their graves in
holy horror if they knew that the Irish were to-day claim
ing them as part of the Hibernian papal outfit.

Fitzsimmons, Thomas. —Signer of the Constitution.
An Episcopalian. 
Meagher', Thos Francis. — The exploits of the so-
called "Irish Brigade" at the battle of Fredericksburg
have been glorified ad nauseum, hut always with Meagher,
the commander, as the central figure. The facts in the
case are these : The five regiments composing the Irish

10
Brigade lost in all at that battle, 545 men, while five
American regiments (i4Sth Penn., 34th Penn., 13th Penn.,
Sth N. H. and nth N. H.), lost 944 men, — including in
both cases killed, wounded, and missing ; and yet we are
constantly told that the Irish regiments (especially the
69th N. Y.), were "swept out of existence"; but the
fact is, the 69th N. Y. lost but 10 killed, 95 wounded, and
23 missing — 128 in all; while the 145th Penn. lost 229
men, the nth N. H. 195, and the sth N. H., 193, — these
latter being purely American (not Irish) regiments. But
they never boast of their exploits.
Of Meagher's cowardly conduct in this battle, one
will be abundantly satisfied by reading in the official rec
ords " The Battle of Fredericksburg " — to be found in
the Boston Public Library and other libraries. Read
also " Fox's Regimental Losses," for records of various
regiments. O'Conor, Charles. — A notorious and disloyal
Copperhead and leader of Tammany. He was the coun
sel for Jeff. Davis during the latter's trial. As an evidence
of what sort of a " great American " O'Conor was, the
following malicious attack on Gen Grant, from Harper's
Weekly of Jan. 6, 1877, is in evidence : —
Fort Washington, New York, I
Nov. 29, 1876. )
Dear Sir, — Gibson says there is a vital difference in the con
sequences of a foreign and a civil war. The former is the external
warmth of summer, always tolerable, and sometimes beneficial ; the
latter is the deadly heat of fever, which consumes without remedy
the vitals of the Constitution. I do not think opinions of a judicial
nature concerning the law or the Constitution of any consequence.
The drunken Democrat whom the Republicans dragged out of the
Galena gutter, besmeared with the blood of his countrymen sImu in
domestic broil, and lifted to a high pedestal as the Moloch of their
worship, rules — and until a great change in sentiment shall take
place must continue to rule — over the prostrate ruins of Washing-

I?
ton's republic. That republic perished on the day that M'Dowell
moved on to Richmond. Yours truly, Charles OConor.
O'Conor was distrusted and despised by all loyal
Union men during the war ; and, as was natural to Ro
man Catholic Irishmen, he consorted with the villainous
Tammany cabal.
Kernan, Francis. — One of the bitterest enemies
of the public-school system that this country has ever
seen. He was neither great nor good, but was elected to
office solely because of his abject servility toward popery.
In Harper's Weekly of Oct. 5, 1872, we read : —
" The recent ' peace meeting ' in New York seems the climax of
the long series of similar gatherings from the opening of the slave
holders' rebellion. The same flashing lights and noisy glitter ; the
same flaunting honors ; the same long array of Irish faces gleaming
with native rashness ; the same blind throng of uncultured Celts,
misguided and led to their own ruin by their politicians or their
priests ; the same pretentious harangues that urge peace with the ene
my and hate to the preserver of the nation, that in language of har
mony concert the deadliest treason, and in swelling sentences of rec
onciliation hide a fatal purpose ; almost the same faces and the same
men appeared again before their countrymen, unabashed and incapa
ble of reform, and their favorite themes were the same. The same
unfounded calumnies were heaped upon the chief of the nation, ex
cept that it was now President Grant, instead of President Lincoln,
that was their object. He was a usurper, Uke Lincoln, and a despot;
he was covered with corruption ; his administration has been a fail
ure ; he had dared to protect the Union men of the South ; he had
squandered the resources of his country.
" ' We must destroy this government I ' cried Kernan, and wild
shouts of applause broke from the ranks of his thoughtless country
men. " Two men, Francis Kernan and Fernando Wood, were there,
who might well stand side by side. When, in January, 1861, the re
bellion was breaking out through all the Southern coasts ; when forts
and arsenals were daily seized, and the rebel leaders were in the first
flush of their easy victories ; when the government was contemned
and the nation sinking into anarchy — Frands Kernan interposed to

i8
chedc the rising patriotism of the North. A resolution was offered
in the legislature of New York (New York World, January 19), de-
daring, among other things, ' that the State of New York wiU put
forth all her power and resources to maintain the government and
aid in the enforcement of the laws.' The patriotic resolution was
opposed by Mr. Kernan. He said that he ' disapproved and con
demned the war spirit at the North.' When an effort was made to
stop the manufacture of cannon for South Carolina at Troy, Mr.
Kernan rebuked its authors, and said he would support no ' sensa
tional legislation.' And as the representative of tbe Irish influ
ence and the Roman Catholic vote, Mr. Kernan labored to secure
the triumph of slavery, and to encourage a course of policy that
must have ended in the destruction of the Union.
" But the blood of the people was up, and Mr. Kernan, after the
fall of Sumter, did not venture any longer to denounce ' the war
spirit at the North.' Yet he was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat.
To the whole poUcy of the Republican party he was bitterly opposed ;
he was still anxious to preserve slavery ; he was still the disdple and
supporter of Seymour, as Seymour had ever been the favored redpi-
ent of the Irish vote ; he was still looking forward to the restoration
of a Union in which the slave-holders, unpunished if not uncon-
quered, should once more resume their imperious control.
" In the spring and summer, indeed, of 1863, ' peace meetings '
grew bitter and insolent. Their traitorous aim was only f aintiy hid
den in professions of recondliation. Fernando Wood and Benjamin
M'Cunn and Fields, were inspired to new effort by the example of
Seymour. At the ' peace meetings ' were heard only groans for Lin
coln and hisses for the war Democrats. The unhappy Irish were
roused into strange passion ; the air was full of rumors of revolt and
treason. The arrest of the 'peace-maker' Vallandigham was de
nounced in a severe letter to President Lincoln by the Democratic
chiefs at Albany. The Catholic press teemed with rude criticisms
upon the Republican leaders, and Dr. Brownson, the chief Romish
controversialist, recommended Mr. Lincoln ' to resign his oflSce and
retire into private life.' The World, now become the chief Demo
cratic journal, foretold the financial ruin of the country, denounced
the 'shallow juggle ' of the Loyal Leagues, and suggested the prob
able defeat of Grant before Vicksburg. Gov. Joel Parker, of New
Jersey, reported the dangerous suggestions of Seymour, and declared
the Emancipation Prodamation an incentive to a servile war a vio
lation of the rules of dviUzed warfare. And at length the Roman
Catholic population of New York, misguided by priests and politi-
dans, rose in a wild rebellion agunst the government they had been

19
taught to despise, and bUndly strove to destroy the nation which had
given them freedom, equality, and hope.
" Such were the results of the active labors of Seymour and the
friends of Kernan, who gathered to his support at the recent ' peace
meeting,' in the most doubtful period of the war, and who then, as
now, seemed more eager to secure the prevalence of slavery and the
ruin of freedom than to avert the fall of the republic. Mr. Kernan
must be content to be judged by his assodates, by the men who
stood at his side in 1863, as well as in 1872 j and if he gave a cold
yet ready support to some of the war measures of the government,
so did, at times. Wood, Seymour, and Buckalew.
" We have reached the last ' peace meeting.' It was a feeble
shadow of all its predecessors, less dangerous, perhaps, less numer
ous, but not less -vindictive and severe. The Irish clubs filed past its
stands in then- usual strength. The epithets bestowed on Grant by
its orators were as vigorous and as rude as those they had once be
stowed on Lincohi. But all the speakers of 1863 and 1868 were not
there. Some had vanished before the menacing frowns of j ustice,
and some before a mightier power. A few recreant Republicans had
taken their places. Mr. Francis Kernan was the chief orator of the
occasion, and, wilh Mr. Fernando Wood, repeated the charges against
the administration. As they had labored together in the same cause
in 1861, sa they were laboring still. Mr. Kernan's speech was a series
of bitter reflections upon the conduct of the Union party and the
character of its chief. Whom it was meant to conciUate or whom to
padfy it was difScult to discover. But upon all the important ques
tions of the hour it was singularly silent How to save the white
and colored voters of the South from their oppressors, how to check
the outrages in Arkansas and Missouri, how to provide for a free
election in Georgia or Texas, he failed to inquire. And of his own
policy he said nothing. Pressed upon the public as a rigid and earn
est Roman Catholic, the member of a powerful sect that has long
converted itself into a political party, pledged to destroy the Ameri
can system of education, he might well have explained to his con
stituents whether he intended to aid in the destruction of the public
schools, or was resolved to defy the censures of the Romish bishops
and the Romish press. He said only that he was in favor of divid
ing the public moneys given in charity according to the numbers of
each denomination ; but this is exactly the piindple upon which the
Romish church claims its share of the school fund. Does Mr. Ker
nan mean to advocate sectarian schools ? Upon the great question
of education he was strangely silent ; yet he saw before him a large
proportion of that class of the population to whom education is the

one most pressing need. Of his Irish supporters, neglected or driven
by their church from the ever-open school, how few can read or
write ? "
We devote a vast deal of space to Kernan simply
because he is a type of the prominent Roman Catholic
Irish of war-times. Yet he is held up to the public gaze,
by Cardinal Gibbons' Romanist Mirror, as an example
of what the Roman Catholic Irish have done for this
country !
Sheridan, Gen. P. A. — An illustration of what the
American public school will do for the child of the Irish
immigrant when it has a fair chance. Phil. Sheridan was
one of those Roman Catholics who are emancipated from
the bondage of the priest, although nominally an ad-
herant of that church. He never -went to confession,
and therefore was not a "good Catholic.'' He was a
brave, dashing, reckless, devil-may-care soldier, and de
serves all the honor he gets. He was not a great gen
eral, like Grant and Sherman, but he was an honor to the
army. He was what he was not because he was a Roman
Catholic, but in spite of that fact.

Taney, Chief Justice. — Prominent solely because
of his iniquitous " Dred Scott Decision." Outside of the
unenviable notoriety gained from this, he would not be
known. The remainder of the list in Cardinal Gibbons' paper
is made up of men in no way noted as " great Ameri
cans," such as Gens. Rosecrans and Shields, both of
whom were failures in the Union Army ; Daniel Dough
erty, who was simply a lecturer, and a dozen generals
who were not Roman Catholics, but who thus have great
ness thrust upon them by their too-anxious Hibernian
admirers.

21
Hughes, Archbishop John. — In a recent speech
in California, Priest Yorke spoke as follows of Archbish
op Hughes of New York : —
" At the critical period of our Civil War, when it was feared that
the governments of Europe might recognize the Confederate States
as belligerents, and that tiie revolution would act disastrously to the
cause of the Union, do you think that Seward and Lincoln were
afraid of the priests ? . . . Lincoln and Seward had sent over from
New York not some of the patriots who are to-day going around pro
tecting the country for a salary, not some of those Orange and Cana
dian patriots who have left their country for their country's good and
for this country's sorrow — no ; they chose to send to the front on that
important diplomatic mission, that great and good man, the arch
bishop of New York, John Hughes."
This statement, in one form or another, has so often
been set afloat by Roman Catholic speakers and writers,
that it will be well to investigate the matter at some
length. John Hughes, Romanist archbi&hop, was the origina
tor of the attack on the American public-school system,
and carried on this warfare with the most intense bitter
ness, even commanding the parishes under his jurisdic
tion to vote only for men who favored a division of
the public-school fund. Pages could be written to show
Hughes' bitterness toward our public-school system, but
it is not necessary, as his record is known.
Bishop Lynch, of Charleston, S. C, had been sent
by the Confederate government to intercede with the
Pope for recognition. To offset the work of Lynch,
President Lincoln was advised to send abroad another
Romanist prelate to present the other side. As is well
known, Hughes' mission was a failure. The Pope sent
his blessing and a medal to Jefferson Davis, and a very
kind letter, the original of which is now among Confed
erate relics in the Treasury department at Washington.*
* The Ambeican Citizen bad this letter photographed and copies printed
from it.

Bishop Coxe thus referred, in 1863, to Archbishop
Hughes' mission to Europe : —
" How it came to pass that he was sent abroad as a gitasi ambas
sador to Louis Napoleon, it is not for us to inquire. How he dis
charged his duties we have a right to infer from the fact that he went
as fast as he could to Rome, and there ranged himself with the ene
mies of ItaUan unity, on the side of Antonelli and Bomba. On his
retum homeward he stopped in DubUn, and there signalized himself
by a sermon and several speeches, which deserve closer examination
than we have time to give them. It was at a very dark moment in
our history, when everybody told him that our cause was lost. Ac
cordingly, his expressions were admirably suited to prepare himself
for any event. He took both sides. ' If the party that is nominally
called " rebel " — the term I don't use in respect of them at all, — if
that party shall triumph, then I will transfer my allegiance to that
party, not as a party, but as the legitimate government of the United
States.' Such was the language, according to the Dublin Freeman,
of a virtual envoy of the United States government ; and such were
the cheers which he accepted from the admirers of the government
of Jefferson Davis I
" On another occasion, at dinner, according to the same author
ity, he disclosed himself as follows : " There are three grotmds on
which alone, according to the teaching of our church, rebellion is jus
tifiable. St. Thomas of Aquinas (sic) you know lays them down very
clearly. One condition is — if the country is borne down by a griev
ous weight of tyranny. . . . Another condition is, the justice of your
cause and object; but then, here is the third and great condition:
Have you measured your strength and made sure of success ? " This
was just after our defeat before Richmond ; and every man in the
interest of the Confederacy would have answered that all three of
these conditions were in its favor, and would have cheered to the
echo these opinions of the (then) spedal envoy of our government
and the (now) commissioner of Pope Pius IX. to bring the war to a
'happy termination.'
"On his return to America he found things improving, and
preached a sermon in his cathedral in favor of conscription as tlie
only fair way to fill up our armies. He has smce explained that he
did not mean compulsory conscription, but only voluntary conscrip
tion ; the great difference between that and volunteering being under
stood, no doubt, by himself and other adepts in Liguorian casuistiy
and Hibernian rhetoric."

23
THE HEW TOKK DR&FT RIOTS.
" When Bedini was here, the Freeman's Jcurnal contained a
horrid threat in the form of a caution to the daily newspapers that
thdr agitation of matters connected with his mission might result in
' a general slaughter of misguided men, and a consequent firing of
the dty in some two hundred places at once.' This language has
been brought to our minds by the events of the memorable week to
which we have directed the attention of our readers. Concerning
that event the report of a respectable eye-witness in the Siecle of
Paris is worthy of note, as it comes from a French officer, and, ap-
parentiy, a Roman Catholic. He says : —
" It was in the quarter inhabited by the colored population, that
the Irish mob — for there was neither a German nor a Frenchman nor
an American in the crowd — spent its fury. We do not believe that
any man ever before witnessed a more ignoble or more humiliating
sight for human dignity than that presented by these hordes of sav
ages, pillaging, burning, murdering, and falling in the streets exhaust
ed with excesses and drunkenness. It was composed entirely of
Roman Catholics."
" But here is a mistake. Several of the Roman Catholic priest
hood exerted themselves creditably, and we record it with sincere
pleasure. Not that any great homage is due to them for using the
influence they have chosen to monopolize over ruffians whom they
have made no appreciable efforts to civilize and restrain. We state
facts just as they are. There were some whose desire for a cessation
of hostilities seemed not wholly disinterested ; they were themselves
the Ucalegonst of the property they endeavored to protect. Others
seemed to be good dtizens, and to lament over the conduct of their
flocks. " But there is a previous question which ought to be well an
swered before we can accord even to these men much praise. With
their tmbounded influence over these people, how comes it that their
flocks are such as they are ? What other reUgion produces such
fruits ? Mobs are generally of no religion ; but how comes it that,
in this instance, when no religious question had been agitated, we
find a mob, the most destructive and ferocious ever heard of in
America, composed of a single class of religionists, and yielding re
spect to nobody but a single class of priests ? How is it that a class
who have received from the American government and people the
largest blessings and the most liberal favors, and who have been in-

t Next neighbors.

24
jured or slighted m no single particular, but rather the reverse •-
how U it that such a class can show themselves so treacherous and
ungrateful, and so ignorant of tiieir duties as dtizens ?
" For the answer we have a right to look to those whom they fol
low so instinctively and obey so implicitly. Why is it that these
priests of God, as they call themselves, have never taught them the
Ten Commandments in their spmt and their broad intent ? Why U
it that their ecclesiastical subjects are so brutally ignorant and so
shockingly uninstructed in the Holy Scriptures ? The pulpits of our
Romish churches resound with harangues on the wickedness of Prot
estants, t on the power of the Pope and the hierarchy, and on mat
ters of great importance to the temporal prosperity of their own
sect. Why is it that their crowded auditories learn so Uttle of the
common duties they owe to their country and to their fellow-citizens
cf all creeds and professions, simply as their fellowmen ? Till these
questions are answered, we cannot join in any extravagant praise of
the few and feeble warnings which would have been very timely be
fore the atrodous outbreak which alarmed, at last, even those who
had openly promoted it.
" But not to forget our commissioner, we must also note the mem
orable Interposition {a la Salerno), which was made just when the
barometer showed that the storm had spent itself, t At the eleventh
hour the walls of New York were placarded -with a proclamation
which was generally regarded as a hoax, so extraordinary was its
phraseology and so arrogant its tone. Though the Pope's commis
sion had not been received, || the functionary anticipated it, and im-

* See speech of Archbishop Hughes, July zz, 1862, in the Dublin Freeman's
Journal. t The following is from the " Catechism of Perseverance,'' published with the
approbation of the Carrolite Bishops : *' In order to show that Protestantism is a
false religion, or rather no religion at all, it will be sufficient simply to bearin mind,
1st. That it was established by four great libertines. 2d. That it owes its origin to
the love of honors, covetous of the goods of others, and the love of sensual pleas
ures, three things forbidden by the Gospel. 3d. That it permits you to do whatever
you please, and to do whatever you believe. 4th. Thatit has caused immense evils,
deluged Germany, France, Switzerland and England with blood ; it leads to im
piety, and finally to indifference, the source cf all revolntions past and future. We
must, therefore, be on our guard against those who preach it, and cherish a horror
for the books which disseminate it.
t The invention of the barometer has been of great service to the priests,— when
they see it rise, they bring ont an image in procession, and the efficacy of this inter
position is, of course, attributable to their idol.
II At least it appeared just afterward, as fresh from Rome, and was either such
or else was brought out just after them for effect.

2S
dertook his work by calling together ' the men of New York who
are called in many of the papers rioters.' The document invited
these men to visit him ' in their whole strength ' ; it promised them
" a speech prepared for them ' ; and with all the assurance of a mag
istrate or a commandant, it promised them that in coming and going
' they should not be disturbed by any exhibition of munidpal or mili
tary presence.'
" It was a maxim of the Cardinal de Retz, that to assemble the
masses is to exdte them. At an earUer period of the riots, Bishop
Hughes had done his part to exdte them, by throwing out a detailed
account of wrongs that had been practiced on ' Irish and Catholic
operatives,' though he prudentiy allowed that his inflammatory
statements were ' more than he could vouch for on his own personal
knowledge.' That one who had thus contributed fuel to the flames
of that awful week, should thus assume the command of the police
and the mihtary and proclaim himself, virtually, the supreme author
ity of the dty of New York, is a circumstance not unworthy of note
It has proved a farce ; but it might have developed into a tragedy,
arraying the national and dvic rulers in apparent conflict with a spir
itual magistrate, and changing the whole nature of the insurrection
into one for the support of a man whom the rioters prodalmed with .
loud voices the chief authority to them. ' You are greater,' said
they, ' than either the President or the governor ' — ' greater than
the queen' — 'a greater commander than them all.' Such were
some of the many manifestations on the part of the * men called
rioters,' which clearly prove to whom they acknowledge allegiance,
and who is proportionably responsible for the sort of allegiance that
they pay to the laws of the land and the lawful magistrates who ad
minister them. In retum, he called them his children, and assured
them, over and over again, that they were not rioters ; an assurance
for which they will doubtless be prepared to pay, solidly, on their
next visit to a tribunal which often steps between a sore conscience
and an outraged community — the confessional.
" The speech itself, which our commissioner had prepared for
such an auditory, is one of the most remarkable harangues of whi-^h
we have ever heard. The occasion would have justified a great ser
mon, or a noble phihpic, or a faithful commination. But it was sim
ply a spedmen of empty egotism and low buffoonery. To think of
it I The spiritual father — for such he styled himself — of the thou
sands who, with bloody hands and ferodous faces, obeyed his call,
acknowledged themselves the ' men called rioters,' and impeached
his paternity by crying out as they did : 'It is a good strong family
that you have before you ? ' Such, then, he was, by his own proclar

26
mation and by these mutual endearments. What had he to say. in
the name of God, in the name of man, in the name of civilization, or
in the name of decency, to these his acknowledged children. Let us
see: —
(I.) " ' They call you rioters. I cannot see a riotous face among
(2.) " ' You have met in such quiet and good order ; though that
does not surprise me, for it is only what I should have expected.'
(3 ) " ' If you are Irishmen — as your enemies say the rioters are
— I am an Irishman, too (loud applause), but I am no rioter.'
(4.) " 'If you are indeed CathoUcs, as they have reported, prob
ably to wound my feeUngs [a high compliment this to his audience],
then I am Catholic, too I ' (Loud and repeated cheering.)
(S ) " ' I have not seen, in this vast audience, one single counte
nance that seems to me to be that of a man that could be called a
rioter I ' (Applause.)
(6.) " 'In case of any injustice — a violent assault upon your
rights -without provocation— ("Hip-hip-hurrah, that's it I") my notion is
that every man has a right to defend his shanty if no more — (Cries
of "so we will," and cheers) — or his house, or his church (loud hur
rahs), at the risk of his life.'
(7.) " ' It would be strange if I did not suffer much in my feel
ings by these reports, by these calumnies, as I hope they are, against
you and against me — that you are rioters.'
(8.) " ' You have — I as well as others — suffered enough already.'
" What must have been the effect of such assurances, from one
whom his hearers so regarded, -with respect to their sense of guilt I
These sentences were mingled with attempted jokes and coarse
stories; they were heard with gross outcries and repeated laughter;
and much time was taken up in what he said he was afraid might be
taken for blarney, about Ireland and Irishmen I The peroration of
this professed minister of Christ, on such an occasion, was as fol
lows : —
" ' I thank you for your kindness (applause), and I hope that
nothing will occur until you get home, at least, (a voice — " when you
want us again, sir, let us know and we will pay you another visit ") —
and if by chance you should see a poUceman or a soldier (here the
archbishop paused for a few seconds, and added) — "just look at
him I' "When we think of the scene: the empty walls of a private
dwelling were visible from his own windows, aJl black with marks of
fire and destruction ; the ruins of the colored Orphan Asylum were
only a few squares behind him, as he sat in his balcony ; the dty
around him was reddened with the blood of unoffending negroes ;
the woods and hiding-places of the surrounding country were filled
-with homeless and f oodless refugees ; millions of property had been

destroyed, and so much a-wful crime committed against God; when
we think of all this, and then of a Christian bishop, with the authors
of such enormities before him applauding him as their chief, and
when we read his words of apparent approval, of levity and van
ity — we can only remember that there is a great white throne, and
that One shall sit on it, who will take account of all that wickedness
of that week and of that day.
" The archbishop even pretended to doubt what had been going
on — in eye-and-earshot of his own house : ' I have been told (he
said) and I have seen it in the papers, that not a littie property has
been destroyed ; I do not say by you.' He had nothing to say of
the murdered negroes, whose blood was clamoring against them
from the gronnd. He had called together the wolves, and owned
himself their shepherd ; he forgot the sheep.
" Not so in the primitive day, when a truly Catholic bishop met
Theodosius at the doors of the Church at Milan, and bade him go
badt — because he was a man of blood I Not so did St. Paul ; when
the uproar at Ephesus had ceased, he could say : 'I am pure from
the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all
the counsel of God, . . . that so laboring ye ought to support the
weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, how He
said, ' It is more blesssd to give than to receive.'
" Alas I so far from teaching his people such things, it is incredi
ble how much pains his priesthood gives themselves to take away
from their people ' the key of knowledge.' In those of our public
schools, where they have their way, not a page of Holy Scripture
can be read to the children, whom the dty is educating at the ex
pense of its tax-payers. Nay, when it has been agreed that only
the Douay version shall be read, it has still been denied. That viru
lent type of Romanism which millions of Romanists denounce as
Ultramontanism, and which is hated in France and Germany, and in
every other educated country, even by the better dasses of Romish
priests — this it is which they have undertaken to propagate in our
country, instead of the old and decent Romanism of Carroll and
Cheverus. The patron of Bedini is the patron of Bishop Hughes,
and now commissions him to settle our national troubles by admon
ishing ' our people and chief rulers.' Impotent and ridiculous as is
the attempt,' it is, we repeat it, very important to our countrymen.
We add, with entire respect for any of the Romish persuasion who
are not of the Bedmian school or party, that it is not less a matter
of importance to them. Bishop Hughes said well in his speech at
Dublin— 'The Americans will never be ruled or governed by for
eigners.' We welcome them to our shores ; we invest them with all
the privileges for which our forefathers toUed and bled; we rejoice
to recognize among them many of the worthiest of our fellow^citi-
zens. But when they reward us, as these rioters have rewarded us,
and when tiiey meddle with our poUtical affans, as Bedini did, and as
Pius the Ninth is domg, we, at least, shall do our duty by du^echng
pubUc attention to their conduct. We have done so m the present
instance that our countrymen may be prepared for any further steps

28
on the part of John and John-Mary, as papal disturbers and emissa
ries. " It would not be just to omit some reference to a statement
which goes uncontradicted, but which we assume cannot be wholly
true, that the governor of New York so far forgot himself as to go
in person to the archbishop and invite his interference. We cannot
suppose that we have, in fact, reached that level of public disgrace.
The chief magistrate of our State could hardly have left the public
business at such a crisis, to go on a pilgrimage to a papal commis
sioner ; nor can we suppose him capable of representing our poUce
and military arms to be so feeble as to require the interposition of an
Irish ecclesiastic.
" We could wish, however, that some authorized denial might be
made of those damaging statements which have appeared in our
newspapers, connected with a very ludicrous story, which may not be
so entirely unfounded. According to these, a romantic lady had con
jured the bishop to appear on horseback in the streets, offering —
' though no Joan of Arc,' — to ride by his side herself, and to place
her body between his and the blow in case of danger I To this lady's
influence is attributed the reported visit of Governor Seymour. She
had assured the bishop that the horse-back exploit would make him
' a second Constantine ' ; and when her eloquence failed she brought
a governor to improve on it. So says the story ; but the bishop
took pains to claim all the glory of the performance to himself. He
said, ' No one has prompted me.' This assertion would lead us to
consider the whole story of the lady's exertions as a myth, were it
not that we never know how to interpret the utterances of Liguorian
orators, nor what aUowances to make for their rhetorical licenses.
" Another magistrate, who is reported to have attended the bish
op in his balcony during the delivery of his address, has since distin
guished himself by benevolent efforts to reheve persons arrested as
rioters of the consequences of their crimes. He seems to have adopt
ed the bishop's convictions that they were only ' called rioters.' Or
perhaps he regards them as absolved by virtue of what happened at
the close of the scene. With uncovered heads they received the
blessing of their spiritual father, which he accompanied by the sign
of the cross I This, and the assurance that ' they had suffered enough
already,' was apparently all that was required to vindicate the maj
esty of the law in the view of such a functionary ; and perhaps just
such a scene is what is meant by ' a happy termination ' in the letter
of the Pope.
" At all events, we have enabled our readers to appredate the
quahfications of one of the Pope's commissioners to effect a peace.
For his own sake, we regret that Pius IX. has not taken the hint
which has been more than once thrown out to France and England
by our national authorities, and abstained from intermeddling. The
patron of Antonelli and Bedini is not the man to inspire American
people with a degree of confidence refused to Louis Napoleon and
Palmerston ; and if we must suffer from diplomatic wolves, we beg
they may not be sent to us in sheep's dothing."
We make no apology for printing so fully Bishop

29
Coxe's powerful letter on Archbishop Hughes. The facts
in regard to the draft-riot have been corroborated in
scores of publications.

DeKalb, Baron. — John Kalb,* who assumed the
title " Baron " and added the " de," and who is mentioned
in Cardinal Gibbons' paper as an " eminent Roman Cath
olic," was a German Protestant and a Freemason. The
best book on this man is that to be found in most all
public libraries, entitled " Life of John Kalb," by Fried-
rich Kapp, of Berlin.
Referring to Kalb's marriage to Miss Robais, in
Paris, April lo, 1764, the author says (p. 36) : —
" It was probably the religious persuasion — both being Protest
ants — which first brought Peter von Robais (father of the lady) in
contact -with Kalb." ..." The wedding took place on the loth of
April, 1764, the marriage ceremony being performed in the Protest
ant chapel of the Dutch legation."
On page 249 of the same book we read : —
" At the opening of the third decade of the present century, the
inhabitants of Camden, and especially the Freemasons, cf which fral-
temity Kalb had been a member, conceived the design of erecting a
monument over his grave."
Our Irish Roman Catholic friends included Kalb (or
" Baron de Kalb ") among their " Roman Catholic he
roes " ; but they forgot Gen. Conway, of Revolutionary
fame — the treacherous enemy of Washington. On page
121 of Kapp's book, we read that when Kalb joined the
American army he feared the American officers might not
welcome him, as he was a foreigner. The author says he
was well received —
" He was assailed, however, by the petty envy of the
Irishman Conway." And then he goes on to tell (as does
* De Kalb was one of the " eminent Catholics " mentioned in Cardinal Gib
bons' paper — the Baltimore Mirror ; but the sketch was accidentally left out of
its proper place in our comment. — Editor.

3«
de Kalb also in his printed letters) how contemptibly
Conway treated him.
No, no ! Cardinal Gibbons 1 « Baron de Kalb was
not one of your kind — he was a sturdy Protestant. But
Conway— of "Conway's Cabal" — was an Irish Ro
man Catholic. 
One of the most remarkable productions we have
ever seen is that advertised extensively in the Roman
Catholic papers, under the title " Irish American Patriots
in the Early Wars," a speech delivered before the Kan
sas State Convention of the Ancient Order of Hibernians
at Pittsburg, by Rev. Jos. A. Pompeney, D. D., Kansas
State Chaplain C. K. of A. [Catholic Knights of Amer
ica.] Price IO cents. For sale by Thos. J. Casey, Kan
sas City, Mo."
We give this book a free advertisement because we
wish those of our readers who are skeptical about our
description of the sort of history taught to Roman Cath
olics, to judge for themselves by examining this pam
phlet. By " Irish- American Patriots " the impression is
given that these men were also Roman Catholics, as none
but Romanists are allowed to join the A. O. H. or C. K.
of A., and certainly no priest would be guilty of lauding
Protestant Irishmen, especially if these Protestants were
sons or grandsons of Orangemen.
We extract a few sentences from pages 1-3 : —
" Five million stalwart men should be enrolled beneath the wav
ing folds of the harp and of the shamrock. . . . Let each one of you
work for the redemption of Irishmen who may have strayed away
from the traditions of Ireland's sons, and from the all-saving fold of
Christ I And why should you rally about a spedal flag ? Because
that flag expresses the noblest sentiments of humanity; because that
flag has waved over a thousand victorious battiefields ; because it
expresses the sighs of a nation groaning beneath the heels of a
tyrannical invader ; because it stands for the purity of the domestic
hearth and for religion, as against the ravings of the legions of
Anglo-Saxon and un-American guilds. (Applause.)

31
" Yes, gentlemen, after the Irishman, -with his great heart, his
noble instincts, his powerful arm, has built in all the halls of our
industrial fabric, has shed his blood on all our battiefields, I ask you
shall he be deprived of the liberty to live and breathe on a soil that
is drenched with the blood of his forefathers ? But this tyrannical
warfare, carried on in the garrets and foul places of the nation, chap
eroned by ignorant and bigoted men, winked at by politicians, is a
sample of what disorganized Irishmen may expect from desperate
fanatics, even in a free country.

" But this is the groan of the fabled Anglo-Saxon I For a hun
dred years our ears have been besmirched with Anglo-Saxon lies.
What have you not heard of the force of Anglo-Saxon character ;
of that faithfulness, purity, bravery, honesty of the Anglo-Saxon
heart ; of his great numerical strength in this country ? Oh, the im
mense gullibility of some people, always and ever ready to accept
fables and garbled history as facts I Where is the Anglo-Saxon ?
He is a myth I
" The Celts were swindled, robbed by the treacherous Saxons,
who were in turn overcome by the Danes, who themselves were an
nihilated by the Normans. The truth is, -that even the Saxon ele
ment has been swallowed up in the growth of the English people-
But when the enthusiastic eulogists of the fabled Anglo-Saxon Jack-
and-the-bean-stalk, attempt to make us believe that America recruited
her sons from Anglo-Saxon loins, that her greatness is traceable to
Anglo-Saxon prowess, her strength of character due to Anglo-Saxon
grit, her purity of morals to Anglo-Saxon honesty, the attempt be
comes ludicrous in the extreme. The facts are quite different. This
country was peopled mostly by the Celts. Aye — and let this be
said with particular emphasis — it is more than probable that the
whole influx of population from England to the new land did not
exceed the immigration from the Emerald Isle alone. It is only
through that infamous system of propagating historic lies and cal
umnies adopted by anti-Catholic governments that the English here
and abroad have succeeded in the last few hundred years in mould
ing the belief amongst us that the Saxon element formed the supe
rior and more numerous part of the American people."
Priest Pompeney, D. D., then goes on to tell us that
Lord Baltimore settled Maryland with Irish, that " thous
ands of Irishmen found their way into the colonies before

32
the Revolution, driven out of Ireland by that English
saint, William of Orange, who drove one hundred thous
and operatives away by closing the linen industries."
He also tells us that William Penn's secretary, who
allowed the Irish to say mass, was Johnny Logan. And
then he adds : —
" Thus the Irish got a footing in Pennsylvania, and a grip on
Philadelphia, which they never relaxed. To-day, gentlemen, the City
of Brotherly Love is at the tender merdes of the Ancient Order of
Hibernians. (Prolonged applause.")
He tells us that half the Revolutionary Army were
(his sort of) Irish, and adds : —
" In 1737, the Irish became so numerous in Boston, that on St.
Patrick's Day of that year they organized the Charitable Irish Sode-
ty, which exists to this day. That sodety gave fifteen famous lead
ers to the War of the RebeUion. Can the Orange A. P. A. clam
as much ? (Cheers.")
But he doesn't explain that no Roman Catholics were
admitted to the Irish Charitable Society of Boston until
about the year 1800, nor were Roman Catholics allowed
to land in New England. He could have learned this by
consulting " The History of the Irish in Boston," by Rev.
Bernard Cul'en (another priest.)
He also forgets to tell us that Bancroft says in his
history " there were very few Roman Catholic Irish in
America at the breaking out of the Revolution."
The Boston Transcript, which strongly favors Roman
Catholic Irishmen, in an issue early in July, 1887, printed
the following editorial : —
" Our esteemed contemporaries, the Pilot and the Republic, have
given much space in their columns recently to extolling the patriot
ism of Irishmen in our Revolutionary War. The Irish member of
our city government in his address at the reusing of the Bunker-Hill
tablets last Monday was very strenuous in insisting upon this patriot
ism of our Irish fellow-dtizens in building up and defending our coun
try. This no one has ever questioned. Some of the brightest names

33
on our annals are those of Irishmen. But the inference from the
language and the spirit of our esteemed contemporaries and of the
orator above referred to in their arguments, would naturally be that
the Irish whose revolutionary and military patriotism they so extol
were of the same dass with those whose full and unrestricted Ameri
can loyalty has recently been challenged on the ground of their eccle
siastical subjection.
" Now the simple facts are that our Irish-American patriots of
the Revolution were almost to a man Protestants. The immigration
of Irish Roman Catholics here did not begin till long after vast num
bers of Irishmen did noble service on our frontiers in the French and
Indian and the Revolutionary War. But they were all Presbyterians
of the most ri^d sort. Many Irish names appear on the patriot rolls
of New Hampshire. These, too, were all Presbyterians. They were
the so-called Scotch-Irish. Of that stock came our honored fellow-
dtizens, the McGregors, the Bells, the Morrisons, etc. A large num
ber of Presbyterians in the North of Ireland, wishing to be free of
English monarchical and ecclesiastical rule, had sent an agent here
in 1728 to Shute, then the royal governor of Massachusetts, in order
to obtain grants of land on which they might settle. The arrange
ment was perfected the next year by the occupation by them of Lon
donderry, N. H. They were the beginning of a strong accession
from that grand Celtic stock. John Sullivan, of Berwick, Me., the
founder of that patriotic family here, was, to be sure, of a Roman
Catholic family of the South of Ireland. He landed at York, Me.,
in 1723, and was befriended in his poverty (he was a school teacher),
by the famous Parson Moody. As he did not attend the services at
the meeting-house, it was inferred that he kept to his ancestral faith.
But the family tradition is that he became what is called ' a Bible-
Christian.' His descendants, however [including Gen. SuUivan and
Gov. Sullivan], have aU been Protestants. It would be difficult for
the last Bunker Hill orator to name a single Irish Roman Catholic
who was m the patriots ranks in the battle. They were all Yankees
of the most pronounced sort of the indigenous stock. It is not
probable that any of them had ever seen a priest, for then there was
no such person here. One of the victuns of the Boston massacre
[Patrick Carr] is said to have been an Irishman ; but of what religion
he was, if of any, nobody knows. He lingered some time in full
consdousness after his wound. There was no priest here to whom
he might make the confession which he freely and earnestly uttered ;
but he comes down to us in the record expressing his deep penitence
and regret for the part he had taken m rioting against a British guard
protecting the Royal Custom House. Although he has been can-

34
onized as a martyr, he said his wound and death were justly visited
upon him for the vrrong which he had done."
If any other evidence is needed it can be furnished
in abundance, to show that the Irish of Revolutionary
times were all — or very nearly all — Protestant and
Scotch-Irish. This wonderful book of Priest Pompeney, D. D.,
goes on to say : —
" When the rotten fabric, which they caUed the British Parlia
ment, passed the Stamp Act, the Virginia Assembly was in session.
A brave American arose to protest against English tyranny. Said
he, ' Csesar had his Brutus, Charles I. his Cromwell, and George IIL
— " treason ? " shouted the Tory A. P. As. of those days. But that
patriot, drawing himself up in all his majesty, repeated with empha
sis  'and George III. may profit by their example.' Gentlemen,
that patriot was Patrick Henry."
Pompeney neglects to tell his readers that Patrick
Henry was a Scotch Protestant !
" It was not long tiU King George, who lorded it over the Irish
at home, thought of repeating his antics over here. He sent two
regiments over to Boston. In 1770 a collision took place between
the red-coats and a body of Boston citizens, in which the British
came out second best. It was here that the blood of the rebeUious
patriots first drenched the soil of our country. And who do you
think was kiUed on that glorious day ? A gentleman from Boston
with the musical name of Patrick Carr."
And the records of the Massachusetts Historical
Society show that Patrick Carr was a common street
brawler. " They say if there is any trouble there must be an Irishman at
the bottom of it. [Voices of ' Hear I Hear I '] So it was soon
noised about that the ' bloody backs ' had been attacked by an Irish
mob. And of course Captsun Moore and Sam Howard, of the Chari
table Irish Sodety, had to be among the Mohawks who pitched the
'protection' tea overboard into Boston Harbor [loud cheers]."
Moore and Howard were both Protestants.

35
" Gendemen, the hero of Fort WiUiam and Mary, the representa
tive from New Hampshire, and afterwards New Hampshire's gov
ernor, was no other than John Sullivan [Cheers]. When that infa
mous A. P. A. traitor, Benedict Arnold, betrayed the Americans,
because there were too many CathoUcs in the American army, our
fathers knew of no better man to take his place than Major General
Sullivan." The Sullivans were very sturdy Protestants.
" The patriots began storing away war materials at Concord, and
the British made a move to capture the same. It was on this occa
sion that Paul Revere made his celebrated ride along the road to
Concord, to inform the patriots of the movements of the red-coats.
Between Concord and Lexington the red-coats were demoralized, and
I might just as weU teU you that the man who did it was Colonel
James Barrett [applause]."
Barrett was a Congregationalist of English descent.
" Next we hear of the British ship Margarita in Machias Bay.
Thus were they to overawe those proud colonists I Our forefathers,
unused to the sea as they were, seized a mere sloop, attacked and
captured the English ship. A series of victories foUowed this move
ment, and in a third struggle the brave Americans beat an English
squadron, and retumed to land to enjoy the recognition of Congress
and the thanks of their jubilant countrymen. The -victorious com
mander of this first naval conflict, in which the red ensign disap
peared beneath the ocean waves, and which compelled British tyran
ny to yield to brave Americans the supremacy of the seas, was Jere
miah O'Brien [applause]."
O'Brien was a Protestant, as are all his descendants
in Maine to this day.
" The battie of Bunker Hill sent a thriU of hope through Amer.
ican homes. The retreating columns of Liberty's sons were saved
from destruction alone by the New Hampshire troops, entrenched
at the rail fence on Bunker Hill. Twice they drove back the red
coats at the point of the bayonet. Gentlemen, in that New Hamp.
shire company alone there were seventy-one Irishmen who had the
honor to be commanded by one of their own, the illustrious General
John Stark. And amongst those whose bloodstained that important

36
battle-field were the names of Major McCleary, WiUard Moore, CoL
Nixon and the lamented Maj.-Gen. Warren."
The men mentioned were all Scotch-Irish Presbyte
rians, and Stark was the grandson of a man who fought
with William of Orange at the battle of the Boyne.
" You have heard of the riflemen of the Revolution who were
an object of terror to the English ranks. Upon their breasts was
written, ' Liberty or Death ' ; and that sentiment found a deep echo
in their patriotic hearts. Gentlemen, those riflemen were sons of
the Emerald Isle, and Col. Thompson, their leader, was Irish, of the
Irish." More of the same sort — not a Romanist or papal
Irishman. " The Enghsh, under Howe, evacuated Boston on St. Patrick's
day, 1776, followed by a thousand American Tories, who preferred
to remain the slaves of a foreign king rather than become free men.
This was the greatest Irish day ever celebrated in America. To show
his appreciation of the bravery of the Irish, Gen. Washington issued
the foUowing celebrated order of march : —
'"Headquarters, 17th of March, 1776. — Parole, Boston; coun
tersign, St. Patrick. The regiments under marching orders to march
to-morrow morning. Brigadier-General of the day. Gen. SuUivan
[cheers].' " Was Gen. Washington anti-Irish ? "
St. Patrick's day was celebrated always by the Irish
Charitable Society (Protestant) of Boston, and Washing
ton simply desired to compliment the brave Protestant
Irishmen. There were no Roman Irish in Boston.
" Gentlemen, Gen. Washington may not have been an Irishman,
but he was a gentleman and a warm companion of Irishmen. Brig.
Gen. Stephen Moylan was his aid and Joseph Reed was his secretary
throughout the campaign, and both were Irishmen."
Reed was a Protestant of English descent.
" America's first general who, after his fall under the waUs of
Quebec was by the English refused the courtesy of a cofiSn, and

3/
whose name is known and revered by every child that reads the
annals of the nation, was the briUiant Irish-American, Brig.-Gen.
Montgomery [applause]."
Gen. Montgomery was a Protestant, and, like Stark,
the grandson of a soldier who fought with William of
Orange. "Scarcely had the red-coats turned their backs upon Boston
when Congress was busy drawing up a Declaration of Independence.
Breathless the exdted people awaited the resolutions of that immor
tal committee, tiU finally the news was procliumed by the old beU in
the Philadelphia tower, amid the rejoicings of the brave and the
scowlings of the Tories. The only signatures the Dedaration re
ceived on the day of its birth — July 4th, 1775 — were those of the
president and secretary of the Continental Congress, Hancock and
Thompson, both of Irish parentage. Let the haters of the Irish
paste this in their hats [long applause] I "
Both Protestants.
" On July Sth, from the top of the Rittenhouse observatory the
predous resolutions were read to a gaping multitude. A shout that
rent the heavens greeted the reading of the immortal document that
announced freedom from English thraldom. Gentlemen, the stento
rian voice that prodaimed the truths of that immortal Declaration
to an astonished world was the voice of the son of an evicted Wex
ford farmer. [Cheers]. Yes, and amongst the glorious names that
graced that document twelve appeared in undisguised Irish dress.
" The last survi-ving signer of the Declaration of Independence
died at the age of 96, in 1932, loved and revered by all true patriots ;
his name was Charles Carroll of Carrollton [applause]."
As Bishop W. S. Perry, of Iowa, has so clearly
shown, every signer of the Declaration of Independence
was Protestant, except Charles Carroll, who signed it
several weeks after the others had done so.
"In 1777-78, Washington went into -winter quarters at Valley
Forge. You have heard your fathers speak of the terrible sufferings
of the American army at VaUey Forge. We know aU about it, be
cause it was an Irishman — Maj.-Gen. Conway — who was inspector-
general of the army. Do you know who was first to come to the

38
assistance of Washington's suffering troops ? Was it the A. P. A.
Tories of old, or the Junior Mechanics? No I The first and only
ship bearing food and clothing to the naked and hungry troops of
Valley Forge, if we except the assistance rendered by the French,
was sent by the CathoUc city of Cork [applause]."
We give Conway to the Roman Irish with pleasure,
for he was a genuine Romanist. He tried to work up an
insurrection against Washington ; he plotted against La
fayette, and was finally shot in a duel by Gen, Cadwalla
der, and supposing himself to be mortally wounded,
wrote to Washington imploring his forgiveness. He died
in disgrace in France. Oh, yes, he was an Irish Roman
Catholic for sure.
But Pompeney forgot to state that it was the Prot
estants of Ireland who sent over the shipload of provi
sions. He is not aware, probably, that Ireland at that
time was governed by a Protestant Parliament, and all
the wealth was in the hands of Protestants.
" When the British captured Stony Point, Gen. Washington was
anxious to retake it, as it was considered an almost impregnable posi
tion. The task was not an easy one. A man of known energy had
to be selected ; the choice feU upon that dauntless patriot who, when
Washington remonstrated with him on the daring and diflSculty of
the undertaking, repUed, ' General, I'U storm heU, if you wiU only
plan it I '
" We never heard that Washington planned the aforesaid trip
to the sulphur regions ; but if his daring general fought his sable
majesty as successfully as he did the English, he made himself
worthy to take his place among the noble spirits who command the
bulwarks and armaments of heaven ! One thing we do know, and
that is, that the noble general carried Stony Point aU right. His
name was the far-famed Irish-American, Gen. Wayne [cheers]."
" Mad Anthony Wayne " was a rigid Presb3rterian.
Out of one hundred statements made in Pompeney's
pamphlet, ninety-five are blunders or falsehoods. He
takes it for granted that Patrick Henry, Barrett, etc., were
Roman Irish because of their names.

39
" Need I remind you that the new war of 1812 with England was
dosed brilliantiy by that gaUant Irishman, Maj.-Gen. Andrew Jack
son, who at New Orleans with the loss of only seven men slew two
thousand red-coats ? WeU revenged was he on the English for the
cruelties which they had inflicted on him and on his brethren."
Andrew Jackson was born in North Carolina of
Scotch-Irish parents of the Presbyterian faith, and his
mother tried to train him for the ministry. He was a
" holy terror " during the greater part of his life, but was
converted and joined the Presbyterian church just before
his death. Pompeney's " facts " which are fables are the sort of
history taught to Irish Roman Catholics all over this coun
try by papal priests, papers, and politicians. Why should
people marvel that the patriotic orders insist upon a cor
rect public school education for all children of immi
grants, instead of the above parochial trash ?
Before closing this part of our subject, we desire to
give a few convincing facts.
Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, in his " Ruling Races "
article in the Century Magazine for September, 1891,
said : —
" The people caUed Scotch-Irish in the United States are descend
ants of the Scotch and English who settled in the north of Ireland,
and who made themselves famous by their defence of Londonderry.
In some instances there was an infusion of Irish blood, but for the
most part these people were of pure Scotch (both lowland and high
land) and English stock, and were ardent Protestants. Their heavi
est emigration to America began about 1729 and continued with flue.
tuating numbers until 1774. They have played a great part in the
United States, as wiU be seen by the detailed table presentiy to be
given : —
It was these Scotch-Irish (not Irish) who made up a
large part of the continental army, and who gave to us
Stark, Wayne, Knox, Montgomery, Patrick Henry, An
drew Jackson, and scores of other heroes; and it was
these men whose deeds were honored by tablets erected

40
at the Bunker Hill Monument by the City of Boston.
They were all Presbyterians or Episcopalians.
Mr. Lodge also says in the same article : —
" The Irish may seem surprisingly few, but as there was virtu-
aUy no Irish immigration during the colonial period, and, indeed>
none of consequence until the present century was weU advanced, no
other result could have been looked for."
Here is an instructive comparison given by Mr.
Lodge to show the relative number of Scotch-Irish (Prot
estants), English (Protestants) and Irish (mostly Roman
CathoUcs), who have risen to any degree of prominence
in the history of this country : —
Scotch-Irish. English. Irish-
Statesmen  265 1542 9
Soldiers  273 1260 18
Clergy  221 1520 28
Lawyers  162 iioo 12
Physicians  86 632 2
Literature  131 1631 17
Art  21 33S 7
Sdence  32 441 3
Education  64 44^ o
Navy  54 350 4
Business  41 402 3
Philanthropy  14 167 4
Pioneers and Explorers.. . 29 120 o
Inventors  15 136 0
En^eers  14 123 2
Architects  2 37 0
Musidans  2 63 0
Actors  13 75 0
Total  1436 10,376 109
The above statistics refer to men well-enough known
to be mentioned in biographies of best-known Americans.
When we come down to really eminent men — such as
Washington, Franklin, etc. — we are informed that the
Irish have produced but two in the whole history of our
country. A little later, perhaps, we will take up this matter
again, but will now go on to other glaring Irish mis-state
ments.

41
^n eminent -writer was thus quoted in the Boston
Herald ot July ii, 1892, in regard to the Irish in Ameri
ca : —
" The modern Irish American, the Catholic from the South and
West, numerically powerful though he be, is an importation of yes
terday. As a social element in American life, he belongs whbUy to
the latter half of the nineteenth century. It would be ludicrous to
pretend that he is regarded by any American who is independent of
his vote -with either liking or respect.
" In almost grotesque contrast to this is the veneration, the pro
found respect, accorded to everything connected with the Scotch-
Irish stock and their history. It is hardly too much to say that the
two races stand, in the estimation of the average American, at the
opposite poles. The modem Irish immigrant suggests to his imagi
nation at once a pauper who shuns the forest and the prairie, swells
the slums of the big dties, amasses money by parasitical rather than
industrial methods, and uses it to debauch the body politic.
" The Scotch-Irishman, on the other hand, is a historical figure.
In the most critical and dramatic periods of American history, when
the sword and the plough, the rifle and the axe, were carving out
great States, the Ulsterman was conspicuously pre-eminent.
"In the Middle and Southern States to-day, when a man is
spoken of as being of Scotch-Irish stock, a compliment is implied as
a matter of course in this simple statement of a fact."

We turn from Priest Pompeney to Henry Austin
Adams, a recent pervert from ritualism to Romanism.
In a lecture delivered in Meriden, Conn., Sunday, May
24, on " America's Debt to the Church," he made certain
statements which were thus reported in the Meriden
Record: —
" Beginning with the discovery of America by a CathoHc, who
was aided by a Catholic queen, sheltered and blessed by a Catholic
monk and priests, he foUowed down through history, pouring out in
eloquent language the works that the CathoUcs had done in opening
up the country.
" ' In my nursery at home,' said he, ' among the children there
is a law that " findings is keepings." Catholics first found this coun-

42
try. It is strange that after four hundred years we should be for
eigners.' " Stating that the CathoUc religion was the first to reach the
country, he said that a hundred years passed before any other came.
He also showed that Catholics opened the country and then came
other sects, seeking religious freedom, and then no sooner settling
before they began persecution. Catholic Maryland was the only
colony that guaranteed religious freedom to all men alike. He paid
a splendid tribute to the sturdy Pilgrims and their descendants.
" He told of the CathoUc influence in the wars and in the gov
ernment of the country, and the places of honor now held by men in
that church.
" In dosing he touched briefly upon the influence of the church's
teachings upon the country. The foundation of the government
was the home, and the enemy of the home was divorce. The Cath
olic church -wiU not tolerate divorce. There never has been and
never will be and cannot be a divorce in that church. The stories
that sensational papers have recentiy printed about divorces in the
church, it has been stated, were not true. In these cases there never
had been a previous marriage.
" The parochial schools were teaching the chUdren to be honest,
pure and truthful, and were teaching the chUdren when they failed
in this to confess and receive absolution and begin again. It was
teaching them the spirit of obedience to authority, and in the latter
was to come the only defense of the government against the evils
that threatened it from the oppressed and down-trodden.
" Mr. Adams was sarcastic and humorous in his lecture, and
was frequently interrupted by applause."
Mr. Adams is much belated in his history. The
character and claims of Columbus are thoroughly exploit
ed and exposed in that ablest of all works on the Genoese
adventurer, by Justin Winsor, the noted Boston and
Cambridge scholar and librarian. That work, in two
volumes, published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., can be
found in any library. It is there proved without doubt, —
ist. That Columbus was not the discoverer of Amer
ica. 2d. That he was a pirate and adventurer.

43
3d. That the papal church discouraged and opposed
his adventure. 4th. That the story of Isabella and her jewels is a
myth. 5th. That Roman Catholic domination was and ever
has been a curse to this nation, and the greatness of the
United States is due wholly to Protestant civilization.
We will have more to say of this again.

Gen. U. S. Grant. — In a recent issue of Cardinal
Gibbons' paper (the Baltimore Mirror) appeared the fol
lowing : —
" The A. P. A. frequently makes extracts from General Grant's
writings, indorsing the prindples of their order. How much sympa
thy he had with such unpatriotic organizations is told in his ' Me
moirs.' He says : —
" ' Most of my neighbors in Galena, IU., had known me as an
officer of the army with Whig prodivitiss. They had been on the
same side, and on the death of their party many had become Know-
nothings or members of the American party. Their lodge was near
my new home, and I was in-vited to join it. I accepted the invita
tion ; I attended a meeting just one week later, and never went to
anotiier afterwards.'
" He saw the true spirit of that organization, and his patriotic
heart revolted against it. He further states : —
" ' But all secret, oath-bound poUtical parties are dangerous to
any nation, no matter how pure or how patriotic the motives and
principles which first bring them together. No poUtical party ought
to exbt when one of its comer-stones is opposition to freedom of
thought, and to the right to worship God " according to the dictates
of one's own consdence," or according to the creed of any religious
denomination whatsoever.' "
We have no doubt that the above were the senti
ments of Gen. Grant in regard to the Know-nothings,
and they are re-echoed by the A, P. As. to-day, which
organization expressly opposes discrimination against a
man because of his place of birth, as the Know-nothings
did — that society being founded on race prejudice. Gen.

44
Grant was right so far as this one feature was concerned.
The fact is, Romanist papers reiterate again and again
the charge against the A. P. A., that it is made up of
"Canadians, Swedes, and Orangemen." If that is the
case, then certainly there is no race discrimination.
But here is consistency : There is no race of people
in the United States more violently prejudiced against
other foreigners, than the Irish Roman Catholics. On
the Pacific Coast, the Denis Kearneys have made inces
sant war on the Chinese ; in the Northwest, the Irish are
always attacking the Scandinavians; in the East, they
are forever attempting to malign and boycott the British-
born Protestant Americans, while their hatred for the
" Dago," as they contemptuously term the Italian, is uni
versal, f
Only a few years ago, Hon. John E. Fitzgerald, the
ablest and most enlightened Irish politician in Boston, in
a speech to Irish Democrats, accused his fellow-Irishmen
of being " Inverted Know-nothings," and declared that
through their violent bigotry they would not allow an
American Democrat to hold an office. For this bold
statement, Fitzgerald lost his prestige and political power,
and was virtually forced to retire from political life.
But Gen. Grant's opposition to secret societies which
proscribe men because of "religious belief," does not
affect the A. P. A. They accord to all men freedom of
conscience, but declare that " freedom of conscience "
does not include the license to trample upon and destroy
the most sacred American institutions, such as the public
school. It should be remembered, too, that Gen. Grant was
connected with a church (Methodist) which refuses to
admit to membership a Roman Catholic while he remains
a Roman Catholic. Is that proscription ?

AS
In Harper's Weekly of Oct. 23, 1875, we find the fol
lowing speech delivered before the army of the Tennes
see, by this same Gen. Grant : —
" Let us, then, begin by guarding against every enemy threaten
ing the prosperity of free repubUcan institutions. I do not bring into
this assemblage poUtics, certainly not partisan poUtics ; but it is a
fair subject for the soldiers in their deUberations to consider what
may be necessary to secure the prize for which they battied. In a
republic like ours, where the dtizen is the sovereign and the official
the servant, where no power is exercised except by the wUl of the
people, it is important that the sovereign, the people, should foster
intdligence — that intelUgence which is to preserve us as a free na
tion. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our
national existence, I predict that the dividing line wiU not be Mason
and Dixon's, but between patriotism and intelUgence on the one side
and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. Now the
centennial year of our national existence, I believe, is a good time to
begin the work of strengthening the foundations of the structure
commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago at
Lexington. Let us aU labor to aid needful guarantees for the securi
ty of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, imfettered
reUgious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men,
irrespective of nationaUty, color or religion. Encourage free schools,
and resolve that not one doUar appropriated for their support shall
be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools. Resolve
that ndther the State nor the nation, nor both combined, shall sup
port institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford to
every chUd growing up in the land the opportunity of a good com
mon-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical
dogmas. Leave the matter of reUgion to the family altar, the church
and the private school supported entirely by private contributions
Keep the church and the state forever separate. With these safe
guards, I believe the battle which created the army of the Tennessee
will not have been fought in vain."
This speech was delivered during the excitement
caused by Rome's attack on our public schools in New
York and other places. Commenting on it editorially.

46
Harper's Weekly of the same date (edited by George Wil
liam Curtis), said : —
" General Grant proceeded in his speech to say that the next
contest would probably be between patriotism and intelUgence on
the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other
and he went on to exhort fidelity to free thought and speech, to equal
rights of every nationaUty, color and religion, and to the free school
as the security of them all. This, again, is reasonable and very time
ly ; but we learn from sources that were formerly of opinion that
Grant was a butcher, and more recentiy a tjrrannical despot and a
fool, that it was a desperate attempt to secure a third term, and to
affect the Ohio election by dragging religion into politics and fore-
teUing a religious war.
" The simple truth is that the Roman church is making a power
ful effort throughout the world to resume her old political ascend
ancy. To this end she has a perfect and world-wide organization,
and can count upon the superstition of ignorance. In the greatest
of European states she is contending to-day with the greatest of
European statesmen. In England the most sagadous and sincere of
English poUtical leaders with masterly force exposes her designs, and
the chief of English poets appeals, in strains that ring like the twang
of the English cross-bow, to the old EngUsh spirit and valor that smote
Rome in England three centuries ago. In this country the hierarchy
of that church has dedared open war upon the American free public
school, not as injurious to American Uberty, but as fatal to Roman
ascendancy. This hierarchy marshals its adherents, who are largely
ignorant and of foreign birth and association, as a voting dass ; and
in Ohio last winter this clerical poUtical power dictated a law to the
legislature of the State, promising its vote at the late election to the
party of the majority which passed the law — a promise which was
undoubtedly fulfilled. In New York, under the plea of parochial
schools, the same clerical power is seeking to pervert the common-
school system to effect its easier overthrow. The attempt is open
and resolute. The purpose is frankly announced, and aU the re
sources of the most powerful priesthood in the world are brought
into the field. To say that it is a bugbear because it is not yet suc-
csssf ul, or to insist that it never can be successful because we are
such an enlightened people, is as fooUsh as to declare that no other
evil is possible because we are so exceptionally honest and superior.
" The way to prevent fires is to put out sparks. Inflation may be
a more imminent peril than the subversion of the school system.

47
But it is less vitaUy threatening, because it has not behind it that
complete organization, that relentless purpose, that impersonal per
sistence, which belong to the Roman hierarchy. Forewarned is fore
armed. When the President says that the security of what the war
gained lies in the school free from sectarian control, he is not, under
existing circumstances, uttering an inappropriate truism. Neither
his comrades who heard the speech, nor intelUgent men who read it,
are of that opinion, whatever may be thought of it by the organs of
a party upon which the enemies of the schools depend."
From every section of the country came attacks from
Romanist papers, priests, and politicians, after the above
speech He was called by all the " pet names " which
are now bestowed upon the A. P. As. ; but he lives in the
memory of grateful millions to-day, while his detractors
are unknown or dishonored.
But upon another plank in the platform of the A. P.
A. Gen. Grant stood equally pronounced. In his mes
sage in 1875, as President, he said : —
" I would caU your attention to the importance of correcting an
evU that if permitted to continue wUl probably lead to great trouble
in the land before the dose of the nineteenth century. It is the
acquisition of vast amounts of untaxed church property. By 1900,
it is safe to say this property wiU reach a sum exceeding three billion
doUars. So vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of
government without bearing its proportion of the burdens and ex
penses of the same, -will not be looked upon acquiescently by those
who have to pay the taxes. In a growing country where real estate
enhances so rapidly with time as in the United States, there is scarce
ly a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by corporations, reli
gious or otherwise, if aUowed to retain real estate without taxation,
and may lead to sequestration -without constitutional authority and
through blood. I would suggest the taxation of aU property equally."
How do our Romanist friends agree with such A. P.
A. doctrine ?

4»

Lincoln, Abraham. — In the Baltimore Mirror we
find the following: —
" Lincoln did not conceal his sentiments towards the parent of
the A. P. A. —the Know-nothings. In a letter to Joshua F. Speed
dated Springfield, August 25, 1855, Lincoln said : —
" ' I am not a Know-nothing ; that is certain. How could 1 be ?
How can anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favor
of degrading any classes of white people ? Our progress in degen-
oracy appears to me to be qiute rapid. As a nation we began by de
claring that " all men are created equal" We now practically read it,
" all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-noth
ings get control, it will read, " all men are created equal, except ne
groes, foreigners, and CathoUcs." When it comes to this, I shaU
prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of
loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where cfespotism can be taken
pure, and without the base aUoy of hypocrisy.' " — Complete Works
of Abraham Lincoln, edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Vol.
I., p. 218. We have no doubt that Lincoln uttered just such
sentiments at the time alleged. He knew absolutely noth
ing then about the political knavery of popery. But
those who have read " Chiniquy's Fifty Years in the
Church of Rome " will not for a moment question his
real attitude toward Rome. Nay, the part taken in his
assassination by Romanists — from Mrs. Surratt to the
French Canadian priests — from these priests to the Pa
pal Zouaves — from the Zouaves to Priest Walter — in
fact, every ramification of the plot, showed the hand of
popery. The mention of the name of Lincoln in Gib
bons' paper is a serious blunder for the papal enemies of
the A. P. A. They enter a dangerous field here.

49

Lincoln's Assassination. — In the New York World
of April 26, 1891, we read : —
" The World last week sent a correspondent to interview Mr.
Saxton, derk in the office of the Judge-Advocate-General of the
army in Washington, concerning certain relics which he treasures ;
among them being the pistol of the assassin Booth, the bullet which
killed Mr. Lincoln, Booth's diary, etc. Among other things was a
tiny littie copper medal or token, said to have been blessed by the
Pope, which was found on Booth's breast at his death, and is still pre
served carefuUy. The ribbon which once held it is gone, but the
medal has aU the signs and insignia of the church. It is purely a
church emblem which everybody might have worn. The interest
Ues in the fact that the same Uttle copper medal was found on Booth's
body over his heart."
Gen. L. C. Baker, Chief United States Detective, in
his famous book, " History of the Secret Service," page
479, quotes from another writer : " It is a significant
fact that every person implicated in the assassination was
a Roman Catholic."
Gen. T. M. Harris (one of the military commission
which tried the conspirators) in his great book, "The
Assassination of Lincoln," says regarding Surratt's stay
in Canada, after his flight from Washington : —
" Father La Pierre now took him in charge. He had provided
for him a secluded up-stairs room at his father's house, right under
the shadow of the bishop's window. This father had been a visitor of
Surratt at the londy parish of St liboire, and now took him under
his especial protection. He kept him concealed, and never allowed
him to go out until after nightfall, and then never alone, but always
accompanied him. La Pierre thus kept his charge safely from the
latter part of July until the sth of September, 1865. During aU this
time be was visited regularly twice a week, on Mondays and Thurs
days, by Father Boucher, who always remained over night with him
at each visit. How can we account for this great interest taken by
these two priests in secreting the murderer of the head of the great
est nation on earth, and that with a full knowledge he stood
charged vrith this crime, and that a great reward was offered for his

5°
apprehension ? How can we consider them less guilty, in a moral
point of view, than Surratt himself? "
Dr. S. F. Hershey, who has made an exhaustive
study of the subject, says in a recent article, in reply to
Dr. Carroll, of the Independent : —
" Lincoln feU the victim of a diaboUcal plot hatched out in the
house of a Roman CathoUc woman in Washington, herself and her
son accessory to the crime. In your editorial, and in former writ
ings, you grow quite warm in your daim that the Irish CathoUcs are
always so loyal in their attachment to our government. I have m
my Ubrary a book, now scarce, the volume issued by Congress in the
summer of 1865. Only copies enough were printed to furnish one
for each member of Congress, and to each nation and sodety, dty
and church, which sent to Washington a formal transmission of
tribute and sorrow upon the death of Lincoln. This volume con
tains aU such formal actions known to have been taken anywhere in
the world by a government, or by fsreign residents assembled in any
city, out of their native country, or by any church, commercial or
church gathering. I find that the foreigners of eight different na-
tionalties assembled in New York City and passed such informal trib
utes of sorrow ; but among them is not to be found the Irish.
" Now, we wUl look dosely at the movements of the fanuly in
whose house the details of the crime were determined. These Sur-
ratts were Roman CathoUcs. I suppose in another ten years you
will deny this in the Independent.
" These Surratts knew of the plot for the burning of New York
dty, which was attempted a short while before the assassination, and
five months after the draft riots. And, by the way, was not that mis
creant Kennedy, who was commissioned to burn that dty by the
Confederate President, and who actually did set fire to four leading
hotels in the city, a Roman CathoUc ? According to Nicolay and
Hay, an advertisement appeared in a paper in Selma, Ala., in Dec.
1864, opening subscriptions for a fund to be used in the assassma-
tion of Lincoln, Seward and Johnson, before the inauguration of
1865. " Mrs. Surratt had said that she would give one thousand doUars
to any one who would kiU Lincoln. Some of the Surratt f amUy were
the trusted agents of Davis in the Canadian conspiracy agsdnst
our government, and the night of the murder John H. Surratt hur
riedly and secretiy left home for Canada.

" A priest by the name of Walters, who recently died, was a fre-^
quenter at this Surratt house, and from that awful April night until
his death conducted himself in a way to convey the impression to
every student of those dark times that he knew more than he ever
told. " The day of the murder Mrs. Surratt was unusually exdted,
forgetful and nervous. She held several private interviews with
Booth. She made a trip for him into the country, along the route
over which he fled, and carried his field-glass and some whiskey for
him, pladng them in charge of a Dr. Mudd, another Roman Catho
lic, with whose son I have talked. A few hours after his deed. Booth
stopped and was ministered to by this same Roman Catholic doctor,
who knew who he was and what he had done. It may safely be left
to any one, with a fairly-disposed judicial trend of mind, if this wom
an and Dr. Mudd were not accessory to the crime of assassinating
the President of the United States.
" Mr. George P. Richardson, yet Uving, of the Third Mass. Heavy
Artillery, was an adjutant-general at the time of the assassination.
He was, if I remember right, in charge of the sentinels about Wash
ington. He testifies that aU the vrires were cut out of Washington
that night, except a secret one from the war department to Fort
Washington, twenty miles down the Potomac, from whence word
was given to aU the brigades around Washington, and the sentinels
received special instruction. And he further testifies that he found
that the sentinel on the bridge over the Eastern branch of the Poto
mac during the watch of the night was a Roman CathoUc, and he
aUowed Booth to pass. He, too, testifies that this Dr. Mudd, to
whom I have aUnded, was a Roman CathoUc. He further testifies
that the two farmers. Cox and James, who secreted Booth a week,
and furmshed him -with a boat, were Roman Catholics. What wiU
you do with Adjt.-General Richardson's testimony ? Nothing 1 Tes
timony against your cUent has no weight. But when you assume to
teach our people tmth and righteousness, and then proceed to set
aside aU truth, you wiU be judged unfak, unjust, and in no sense
reliable. But this clause is a digression.
" Now foUow John H. Surratt. He was in Washington the after
noon of the assassination, booted and spurred. He had just re
tumed from Montreal, with over |Sioo,ooo paid him by the Confeder
ate agents in that intensely Roman Catholic town. Four days after
the assassination he is regUtered at a Montreal hotel, having dropped
his handkerchief at a Vermont railway station on his way. Almost

S2
immediately we find him taken into concealment by a Roman Catho
lic by the name of Du TUley. For three months he is in the house
of a priest by the name of Boucher. The arrangements had been
made in advance for this priest to take charge of Surratt, and keep
him secreted. Did that make the priest morally accessory to the
crime ? Then, for another period of two months he is in the house
of another priest by the name of La Pierre. Both of these priests
knew he was connected with the recent assassination plot at the na
tional seat of the American Government. While in the keepmg of
La Pierre he was allowed to go out only at midnight, and then ac
companied by the priest. Twice every week he was visited by the
priest Boucher. In this priestly charge he was conveyed, in a dosed
carriage, to a steamer, and concealed by the priest in a steamer-
room. The priest committed him, in confidence, to the ship doctor,
vrithout, however, telling j ust who he was. But during the trip across
the ocean Surratt became confidential to the doctor. He told him
that he had gone, prior to the assassination, from Davis and his cabi
net to the Confederate agents in Canada, bearing important mes
sages, and carrying one time $30,000, and another $70,000.
" After remaining in England a long while, we next find Suiratt
in Italy, in the papal guards. This is rather suggestive, is it not t
When his whereabouts were discovered, the Pope agreed to surren
der him to the American Govemment, but asking that he be aUowed
to remain under papal keeping whUe awaiting the proper orders from
Washington. But when the proper orders from Washington arrived,
Surratt had escaped. Oh, what fools these nations be when dealing
with papal diplomacy I Duped every time I But Surratt was found
in Egypt, and brought to Washington for trial.
" During that trial the Roman priesthood took the strangest in
terest in the criminal. They were constantly in the court-room. Out
of the twenty-six jurors drawn for the panel it was found that six
teen were Roman Catholics. Upon this fact being learned by Judge
Fisher, presiding on the bench, he ordered another drawing. You
may regard this as acddental, but no other intelUgent American wiU
do so. Jesuits were always hanging about, and getting on the stand
to testify against the govemment witnesses, and always contradicting
each other. Professors and students from St. Charles CoUege hung
about the prisoner. At one point in the trial the presiding judge
said : ' I have never, in all my judicial experience, seen a case in
which there has been so much trouble with regard to the examination
of witnesses.' " This, my dear doctor, was the connection of Roman CathoUcs,

S3
by religion or by education, \rith the assassination of the President,
at a time when it was thought his downfall would prove a benefit to
that church ; and such, too, the compUdty of Roman CathoUc priests,
with a crime so black and cruel that even rebel prisoners of war,
held in Northern prisons, to the number of thirteen thousand in
meeting assembled, passed resolutions condemning it, and pronoun
cing their cuise upon it.
"Ah, no. Dr. CarroU, it won't do. You cannot wipe out that
ugly chapter in American history. While there were millions of Ro
man Catholics who were as innocent of that crime as the angels of
heaven, and who shrank from its unutterable horror, yet there was a
Jesuit spirit of intrigue, ready to devise a way to an end, which, it
was told generaUy in Roman CathoUc circles, would be advantageous
to that church. And the Jesuit work done then, and prior thereto,
wiU make it a hard task for the Roman priesthood of that day, in
this countiy and in Canada, to be cleared from the ugly charge of
criminal compUdty, in so far as knowledge and sympathy constitute
incrimination. " In denying the statement I ascribed to Gen. Baker, you say
some of the parties executed were attended by Protestant ministers
at the gallows. What of that } No one daims they were aU Ro
man CathoUcs. Such high and reUable authorities as Baker and
Harris say they were either members of that church or educated in
the church schools, like Jefferson Davis, for instance. And my con
viction is that Roman CathoUc training sticks, and is apt to bear
fruit. It seems pretty dear it did with Davis. Perhaps you attended
a Roman school in your earUer years. I see, according to a recent
sketch of your career, from a gentleman who claims to be a neigh
bor and friend, and a member of the same church as yourself, that
you were a Catholic in your childhood. As to whether you ever had
any Roman CathoUc schooling or not, you are very ready to derange
events and warp history in the interests of the papacy in our country.
" I am well acqu^ted with the Protestant minister who attended
Atzerodt. He says he did not do so upon the request of the con
demned, who seemed to have no reUgious feeling whatever, but he
attended the execution upon the summons of the govemment, being
a hospital chaplain."
The above, from Dr. Hershey's pen, is conclusive.
The epithets constantly bestowed upon President Lin
coln during the war, such as " ape," " baboon," etc., by

54
the Pilot and other papal papers, show how Rome regard
ed the good President.
If more evidence were needed, the following extract
from Gen. Harris' book would be suggestive : —
" For twenty-six years Father Walter [the confessor of Mrs.
Surratt] and his rebel coadjutors have kept a paragraph going the
rounds of the papers stating as a fact that aU the members of the
commission [which tried the assassins of Lincoln] are dead but one ;
and that they have died miserable deaths which marked them as the
subjects of heaven's dire vengeance, and that some of them perished
from the violence of their own hands, being crazed with remorse.
The truth is that at this writing (March, 1892), all the members of the
commission are alive except Generals Hunter and Ekin. General
Hunter lived to over fourscore years, and Gen. Ekin to seventy-three.
The writer of these pages is nearly seventy-ninerand is stiU able to
vindicate the truth in the interest of a true history of his period. Is
it not time that the American people should be fuUy informed on
this most important and interesting episode in their history, and
wamed against these dangerous men whose highest ambition, even
at this late day, is to subvert our liberties ? "
As to the religion of the conspirators, a prominent
Roman Catholic who knew all the parties, says : —
" The Surratts, Herold, Dr. Mudd, and O'Loughlin, were Roman
Catholics ; Payne, a Baptist ; Atzerodt, a Lutheran. Booth and the
others had no reUgion at aU. However, when taken from the burn
ing bam in which he was shot, there was found suspended about
Booth's neck a Roman CathoUc medal of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
The same writer also says : —
" Dr. Mudd was a Roman Catholic in his reUgion, and was edu
cated at the Jesuit coUege in Georgetown, D. C. In the latter part
of November, 1864, John Wilkes Booth came with letters of intro-
ducton from a Dr. Martm in Montreal, Canada, to a certain Dr.
Quinn, in Charles County, Md. This Dr. Quinn, in turn, presented
Booth to Dr. Mudd, with whom he lodged over night, and through
whom he procured of PoUc Gardner one of the several horses which
were at his disposal, and used by him and his accompUces in Wash
ington on the night of the assassination.
"John H. Surratt was the youngest of three chUdren of Mary

ss
E. Surratt and of her husband. He had been educated at the Ro
man Catholic college of St. Charles, in Howard County, Maryland,
for the CathoUc priesthood, but feding that he had no caUing for the
same, he retumed to his home in July, 1862, at SurrattsvUle, in Prince
George's County, Md.
" Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Loughlin were early school
friends of Booth in Maryland. O'Loughlin was a Roman CathoUc ;
his mother was a tenant in Baltimore in one of the houses that be
longed to Booth's mother.
" John H. Surratt is now — or was, recently — in a monastery.''
These facts will not be forgotten. Neither will the
hypocritical pretense that Lincoln was friendly to popery
be for a moment believed by those conversant with the
facts. " Religious Liberty " in Maryland. — Without
exception, every Roman Catholic writer or lecturer on
every possible occasion, triumphantly exclaims : " Was
not religious toleration first granted in Catholic Mary
land ? " We -will examine this claim, and will prove, be
yond cavil, that the papal church is entitled to no credit
whatever for toleration in Maryland or any other part of
the world. In fact, during the very period covered
by the boasted toleration granted by the Church of
Rome in Maryland (1632-1652), the Inquisition was car
rying on its bloody work in Europe, and even later than
this came the bitter persecution of the Huguenots by this
same " tolerant " Church of Rome ; while less than sev
enty years before a whole colony of Huguenots in Flori
da had been massacred by a devoted Spanish " son of
the church." Says Bishop W. S. Perry, D. D., LL. D. (Episcopa
lian) of Iowa : —
" The history of the world gives no instance of the Roman
church ever giving to a people reU^ous liberty or freedom of speech,
thought, or beUef. I am not unmindful of the vaunted claim of the

S6
Baltimore famUy of establishing religious freedom in Maryland dur
ing the temporary connection of this family with the Roman church.
But the Maryland charter of toleration was the gift of an EngUsh
monarch, the nominal head of the Church of England, and the credit
of any merit in this donative is due to the giver and not to the redpi-
ent of the kingly grant. Again do I repeat that we, the people of
the United States, owe neither our origin or development, our growth,
our glory, our language, our natural peculiarities, our ideas of Ufe,
i'^erty, and law, our freedom of speech, of thought, of conscience, to
t_ie Latin peoples or to the Church of Rome."
Says another writer : —
" In accordance with the proprietary form of the charter given
by Charles I. of England, Lord Baltimore was constituted sole mon
arch of the territory, limited only by his aUegiance to the king and by
the terms of the charter. Being a man of noble, generous impulses,
shrewd, sagadous, and far-seeing, ' ever intent,' says Bancroft, ' on
advandng the interests of his colony,' he very wisely, in founding it,
estabUshed, as far as he could, a poUcy of Umited taxation. But in
no sense can the Romish church daim credit for this toleration.
" Romanism had nothing to do with the poUtical enterprise Lord
Baltimore established, and the religious toleration he promoted.
Charles I. of England, by whom the charter was granted, made tol
eration a certainty, by making it a prominent feature of the charter,
and he was a Protestant EpiscopaUan ; and whUe for his wife's sake
he granted toleration to Romanists, for his own sake he granted tol
eration to Episcopalians, but had nothing to say for Presbyterians,
Baptists and Independents. Not untU years afterwards and the col
ony had virtually become independent of Great Britain, was general
toleration thought of.
" No more can the Romish church claim credit for Lord Balti
more's principles of toleration. Lord Baltimore was of Protestant
birth and tridning, a native of Protestant Yorkshire, and a graduate
of the Protestant university of Oxford. Descended from a wealthy
and noble famUy, and possessing influential friends, he had been in
vested with noble titles, and appointed to honorable positions in the
kingdom, even to that of Secretary of State; his views of men and
things had been broadened and enlarged. Being, however, a man
who loved peace and hated strife, he had turned from the religious
controversies and sectarian intolerance of the age to the Romish
church in hope of finding quietness. But it would be absurd to
affirm that in making that change — which he did just prior to 1624

S7
— when he resigned his post of Secretary of State — he underwent
a radical change of hature.
" That he was benevolent, generous and tolerant long years be
fore he became a Romanist, his pubhc life abundantiy states. Cer
tainly, then, the Roman CathoUc church can lay no claim to tolera
tion merely because one of her proselytes was tolerant. A Protest
ant influences had made him, Romanism found him.
" Again, the dum of the papal church proves too much. Here
is the syllogism : Lord Baltimore was tolerant; Lord Baltimore was
a Romanist; therefore Romanism was tolerant in Maryland in Colon
ial times. Apply this mode of reasoning to other personages in
American history. Cortes crueUy murdered the Mexicans ; Cortes
was a Romanist; therefore Romanism plundered and butchered the
Mexicans. Chief Justice Taney gave the Dred-Scottdedsion; Chief
Justice Taney was a Romanist ; therefore Romanism is in favor of
slave-holders and slavery.
" But what was this toleration of Lord Baltimore of which so
much has been made ? Lord Baltimore was tolerant only to Chris
tians. Those under his jurisdiction were to be punished with death
who should ' blaspheme God, or deny or reproach the Holy Trinity,
or any of the three persons thereof ' (that is, Jews, Socinians, Unita'
rians, etc), and those who reproached the Virgin Mary, etc., were to
be fined, whipped, and for the third offense banished. It is manifest
that neither Lord Baltimore nor his successor designed to proclaim
absolute reUgious freedom. Why, the first act of the assembly of
1639 was to make the Roman CathoUc religion the creed of the
State ; and eating flesh in time of Lent was forbidden under penalty
of fine ; and this was obUgatory on Protestants as well as Roman
CathoUcs. The honor of first prodaiming and practising absolute
reUgious freedom, that is, disconnection of church and state, is due
to Roger WiUiams, and to him only. And the writer of this artide
is no Baptist, either.
"As early as 1631, Roger WiUiams publicly maintained 'soul-
Uberty ' in Boston and Salem, Mass., and denied the right of the mag
istrates to punish for any but dvil offences ; and being banished from
the colony of Massachusetts in the latter part of 1635, he founded
Providence, R. I., in June, 1636, as a 'shelter for persons distressed
for consdence sake,' and one of the earliest laws of this Common
wealth was, that no man should be molested for his consdence.
" It was in the Protestant colonies of New England, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, etc., rather than in Roman CathoUc Maryland, that
the first seeds of American liberty, both civU and religious, were
planted.

S8
" We have said that Lord Baltimore was tolerant only to Chris
tians. Now we know that Romanism recognizes no one as a Chris
tian unless he be a Roman CathoUc. There, then, was toleration
only to Roman CathoUcs. But if it be said that the word Christian
here means Protestants as weU as Romanists, then Lord Baltimore
was more tolerant than his church, and it is a historical fact that he
was; for at first Episcopalians were recognized as Christians, and
subsequently aU who professed to beUeve in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Romish church never authorized anybody to designate heretics
as Christians ; yet Lord Baltimore did it in good faith. Thus Lord
Baltimore was very far from being a strict or a good Romanist.
" Further, to show that the Roman Catholic church as such had
nothing to do with the toleration granted to the Maryland colonists,
but, on the contrary, that the toleration was contrary to the creed
and practice of the church, we have but to turn over the leaves of
history and see what the papacy was doing wherever it had the pow
er, and trying to do where it was powerless, between the birth of
Lord Baltimore in 1580, and the final establishment of reUgious free
dom in the province in 1660. In order to determine the relation of
the Roman CathoUc system to liberty, it is needful to inquire into
the position and course, not so much of individual Roman CathoUcs
in this and other countries, as of the authorities and leaders of the
church itself as an organized body acting through these.
" In Germany and the neighboring territory the Ronush church
sanctioned anything but toleration. Ignoring the letter of Rudolf
IL, Emperor Matthias debarred aU Protestants from their ci-vil and
religious privUeges, and Ferdinand II. expelled the Protestant dergy
from his dominions, and gave the Jesuits fuU sway, while the Pope
refused to recognize the peace of Augsburg. In Bohemia, the Jes
uits exterminated Protestantism ; in SUesia they confiscated or de
stroyed more than a thousand Protestant churches, and fearfuUy re
duced the number of Protestants in Hungary ; whUe the Valteline
massacre was a repetition of that of St. Bartholomew, only on a
smaller scale, all the Protestants in the vaUey being butchered in cold
blood. " In France and Piedmont the Protestants fared no better. In
direct violation of the edict of Nantes, Louis XIII. oppressed the
Huguenots, and Cardinal Richelieu denied them all their poUtical
privUeges ; whUe Louis XIV. drenched his kingdom with Protestant
blood. His terrible dragonades wiU stand tUl the end of time as a
burning disgrace to so-called dvUization.
" Crossing the channel we have but to read the story of the sav-

59
ageness of the Irish massacre in Ireland during that period when
four hundred thousand Protestants were crueUy murdered. O'MaJio-
ney, an Irish Jesuit, in his Desputatio Apologetico, published in 1645,
confesses that ' his party ' had cut off one hundred and fifty thous
and heretics to learn the position of Romanism as regards religious
freedom. " With such a record of the doings of Romanism during that
period — a record of such cruel persecution as chUls the blood of the
calmest reader — is not the daim of Romanism to be the first to pro
claim and practice religious toleration because one of her proselytes
was tolerant, perf ectiy preposterous ? Why, the whole history of Ro
manism confirms the words of the editor of the Shepherd of the Val
ley, a leading Roman CathoUc paper of the West, that ' Catholidsm
(Roman) is the most intolerant of aU creeds,' as wdl as those of
the scholarly Romanist, Dr. Brownson, ' Protestantism of every form
has not, and never can have, any rights where CathoUdty is trium
phant.' "
Prof. Geo. P. Fisher, of Yale College, who is gener
ally favorable to Romanism, says in his " Colonial Era "
(published by Scribners), page 64 : —
" Only two references to religion are to be found in the Mary
land charter. The first gives to the proprietary the patronage and
advowsons of churches. The second empowers him to erect church
es, diapels, and oratories, which he may cause to be consecrated
according to the ecdesiastical laws of England. The phraseology of
these passages is copied from the Avalon patent that was given to
Sir George Calvert (first Lord Baltimore) when he was a member of
the Church of England. Yet the terms were such that the recogni
tion of that church as the estabhshed form of religion does not pre
vent the proprietary and the colony from the exerdse of full tolera
tion toward other Christian bodies."
Here, then, is conclusive proof that the much-boast
ed Roman Catholic toleration was, in fact, Protestant tol
eration — the toleration of a Protestant king through a
charter given to a Protestant proprietary, for other de
nominations besides the Church of England !
In regard to Baltimore's adherance to the terms of
the charter after he became a Roman Catholic, Prof.
Fisher says (p. 65) : —

6o
"Any attempt to proscribe Protestants would have speedily
proved fatal to the existence of the colony. In a document which
emanated partly from Baltimore himself, it is declared to be evident
that the distmctive privUeges ' usually granted to ecclesiastics of the
Roman Catholic church by CathoUc princes in their own countries,
could not possibly be granted here [in Maryland] without great of
fence to the king and state of England."
So we find the Protestant King of England really
held a tight rein over Baltimore, and he could not have
been otherwise than " tolerant " had he so desired.
Again we read (page 69) : —
" In 1648, after the death of his brother, the proprietary gave a
commission as governor to WiUiam Stone, a Protestant, whom he
required to take an oath not to molest, on account of their reUgion,
any person who accepted the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
The oath spedfied the Roman Catholics in particular as to be pro
tected against interference -with their Uberty of beUef and of wor
ship. This stipulation was deemed espedaUy needful on account of
the state of the parties in England, and now that so large a majority
of the people of the colony were Protestants. It was in these drcum-
stances that, in April, 1649, the celebrated Act of ReUgious Freedom
was passed, by which liberty of consdence in matters of reUgion was
guaranteed to aU Christians, with the exception of disbeUeveis in the
doctrine of the Trinity. This was the first explidt guarantee of
religious freedom that was promulgated in Maryland."
Is not the above sufficient to destroy effectually all
cause for gratulation on the part of Romanists that they
" first granted religious freedom 1 " Prof. Fisher proves
(ist) that the Maryland charter was given by a Protest
ant king ; (2d) that it was given to a Protestant proprie
tary ; (3d) that it was only made the law of the colony
after Protestants were largely in the majority, and long
after Roger Williams had granted freedom of his own
volition in Rhode Island to all people (including Unita
rians and infidels).
In the book, " George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,"

6i
by Wm. Hand Browne ("Makers of America" series,
pubUshed'by Dodd, Mead & Co.), we read (p. 28) that
Baltimore's plan when he first landed was " to build up a
colony for those of his own faith," but the Protestants of
Virginia would not allow it.
On page 1 13 we read : —
" But Maryland [1638] was in aUegiance to a Protestant sover-
dgn; its colonists were members of a Protestant — and jealously
Protestant — nation, and themselves for the most part Protestants ;
they were surrounded by Protestant neighbors ; powerful and vigi
lant enemies on both sides of the Atiantic were watching for any
loophole of attack — any pretext to work the ruin of the infant
colony." Is it any wonder, then, that the Roman Catholics
were " tolerant " — when they couldn't help themselves .?
On the contrary, was not the " toleration " on the other
side — the Protestants being in the majority and allowing
the Roman Catholics "freedom of worship" .'
Referring to the very natural suspicion with which
the Protestants of Virginia looked upon the Roman Cath
olics, the New York Tribune of January, 189 1 (we have
not the exact date, but sometime prior to January 14)
says : —
"The truth must be recognized that George Calvert's public
career put him at enmity with the spirit of his age and country, and
from the first surrounded his colonizing schemes with obstacles and
suspicions. The EngUsh did right to mistrust one who would have
flung his countiy into the arms of Spain ; who believed that the
Pope was supreme not only spiritually but temporarily ; and who
most probably would have counseUed her soverdgn to put the inter
ests of Rome before those of England. Of course CecUius Calvert,
being also a budding Roman Catholic, shared this mistrust, and was
equaUy open to charges for papistical conspirades. From the first
it was asserted that the sole purpose of founding Maryland was
to buUd up a popish State which could be used as a leverage against
EngUsh Protestantism ; and though Baltimore had the king on his

62
side, pubUc opinion both at home and in America was too pronounced
on this subject for even the most wilful Stuart to ignore it altogether.
Thus it came about that the Calverts found themselves under com
pulsion to exercise in Maryland a toleration broader and more genu
ine than had hitherto been practised anywhere ; and it is the most
praiseworthy fact in their careers that both of them adhered with
unflinching loyalty to this policy, nor ever pernutted persecution for
opinion's sake to be practised in their territory."
But why multiply evidence ? Pages could be writ
ten that the boast of " Maryland toleration " is a chi
mera — a figment of the imagination. For proof, read
Fisher, Browne, Lossing, or scores of other works.
That Roger Williams was the real progenitor of reli
gious toleration in this country, is easily proved by many
authors. Jared Sparks, in his " Life of Roger Williams "
(Library of American Biography), page 74, referring to
the famous " social compact " between the colonists of
Providence, says : " This, it is believed, is the first form
of government recorded in history that contains an ex
press practical recognition of the rights of conscience."
..." It was the perfection of civil' freedom, without any
alloy of licentiousness, while it left the conscience undis
turbed in its allegiance to God alone."
In Ridpath's " History of the United States " (page
128) we read: "To this man [Roger Williams] belongs
the shining honor of being the first in America or in
Europe to proclaim the full gospel of religious tolera
tion." It was in 1631, in Salem, Mass., that he first pub
licly declared these sentiments, and they led to his ban
ishment. Montgomery's History shows (page 107) that reli
gious liberty in Rhode Island meant much more than in
Maryland — for in the latter. Unitarians, Spiritualists,
Agnostics, etc., were excluded under penalty of death,
while they were freely admitted to Rhode Island.

63

Columbus and the Papacy. — The Rev. Mr.
Adams, a pervert to Rome, in a recent speech at Meri
den, Conn., claims that as " Catholics discovered this
country, therefore the Catholic Church has a sacred claim
upon it " As well claim that as the Indians or other
races " discovered " it, or were in possession of it, before
the Spaniards landed, therefore these original settlers
have a " sacred claim upon it," or contend that because
of the Roman pretension of discovery by Columbus,
therefore the Genoese and Spaniards have a " sacred "
claim, to the exclusion of the Irish and other races.
But the fact is, at all times the conquering race, or the
people best fitted to survive, have had the acknowledged
right to the country which they possess. This may not
be in accordance with the best interpretation of Chris
tianity, but it certainly is the recognized law of nations.
The Roman Church sent her Spaniards here, and they
made a perfect hell of this country, though acting in the
name of their church ; and it is only under the influence
of Protestant civilization that the United States stands
to- day in the forefront among the nations of the world.
In the two chapters devoted to Columbus and the
part popery has had in the discovery and settlement of
this country, we will show, in the words of eminent
authorities —
ist. That Columbus was a pirate, slave trader, and
murderer. 2d. That if his church gave him its blessing, they
did it with a full knowledge of his character.
3d. That if he did not go forth with the approval
and blessing of his church, then papal history is false.

64
4th. That he never discovered any portion of Amer
ica which is now part of the United States.
5th. That Cabot, sent out by Protestant England,
alone deserves the honor for the discovery of America.
6th. That the so styled " Catholic Majesties of Spam,"
Ferdinand and Isabella, were typical Roman Catholics of
that time — a disgrace to civilization.
7th. That the reigning pope at that time was the
notorious Alexander VI. — the infamous Borgia.
8th. That — in the words of a noted writer — "Prov
idence has given us a mighty object-lesson in the two
civilizations side by side — that of North America and of
South America — one Protestant, the other Roman Cath
olic — showing clearly what would have been the fate of
this land had popery gained permanent control."
What we give in this chapter is but a hint of what
may be gleaned from the authorities quoted — notably
Justin Winsor's " Christopher Columbus," to be found in
all public libraries, and which no one will think of dis
puting. Should our readers care to read further descrip
tions of papal civilization in the Western Hemisphere,
they should read Prescott, Parkman, Gorham D. Abbott
(G. P. Putnam & Son, New York), Chevalier, Prof. J. W.
Draper, Humboldt, or scores of other authors on the
subject. Mr. Adams echoes the challenge of nearly every
other Roman Catholic writer and lecturer, including Car
dinal Gibbons. That brilliant Irishman, D'Arcy McGee,
in a lecture many years ago, put the Romish claim in this
form : —
" I have publicly announced for some time that I am prepared
to prove in these discourses three propositions, to wit : —
" I. That the discovery and exploration of America were [Ro
man] Catholic enterprises, undertaken by [Roman] Catholics, with

6s
[Roman] Catholic motives, and carried on by [Roman] CathoUc co
operation. " 2. That the only systematic attempts to dvUize and Christian
ize the aborigines were made by [Roman] Catholic missionaries.
" 3. That the mdependence of the United States was, m a great
degree, estabUshed by [Roman] Catholic blood, talent and treasure."
This statement of McGee has been reiterated again
and again by his admirers ; but it is observed that neither
he nor they ever attempted to offer any proof for their
claims. Bishop W. S. Perry (Episcopalian) of Iowa, thus re
plies to the above : —
" The student of history will join issue with each one of these
propositions. If these statements are true, if they are historical, if
they are sustained by evidence, the present conditions of our na
tional existence, the palpable facts of our individual Ufe, the institu
tions by which we are surrounded, the faiths of the great body of
our people, the Uberty, dvil and ecdesiastical, which is ours, are not
to be accounted for — cannot be understood. The actual results of
Roman CathoUc discovery and exploration on this continent can
be easUy identified. The pages of history record the successive
stages of their inception, their development, and their present state.
The Latin repubUcs of North and South America are the results of
Roman Catholic discovery, exploration, conquest and colonization.
But the great repubUc of the United States owes nothing to Colum
bus, to Spidn, to Rome. The Genoese adventurer whose discovery
of a West Indian Island was the result of a blunder in geography,
and whose feet never trod on the territory of the United States, had
neither genius nor character. As seen by the light of history, even
by Roman Catholic history — for we leam of the evU life, of the
atrodties, and of the pitiful meanness of Columbus from Spanish
authorities alone — he gave to the new world, which, with uncritical
and iU-informed enthusiasm, would now glorify him as its discoverer,
slavery instead of Uberty, and the institutions of an imperfect civili
zation, and the teachings of a caricature of Christianity — a belief
from which aU love, pity, gentleness, and mercy, had been eliminated.
" We blush for the faith that for a moment boasts of the meas
ures recorded by Las Casas, a Spanish bishop, as furthered by Col
umbus in his avowed purpose of securing gold with which to insti
tute a new crusade for the redemption of the Holy Sepulchre from

66
the Moslems of the East. It is enough, as characterizing the dvili-
zing and Christianizing of the American aborigines brought about
by Spanish missionaries, to point to the conquest of Mexico and
Pern, as narrated by historians such as Prescott and Arthur Helps.
If our free institutions, our liberty, dvil and reUgious, our free ideas,
have come to us from the Roman Catholic discoverers, the Roman
CathoUc explorers, the Roman CathoUc motives, purposes, co-opera
tion, so much vaunted at this present time, it is simply extraordinary
that not a trace of these influences, these measures, these labors,
exist to-day within the territory of the United States.
" That our people are not peons, such as are found in Spanish
Mexico ; that they are not habitants, such as exist in the French and
Roman Catholic provinces of Canada, is due to the fact that our
discovery, our descent, our institutions, laws, ideas, speech and
thought, are EngUsh, and not from the Latin races, or the Church of
Rome. The Spanish and French efforts for the conversion of the
aborigines have resulted in extermination. Their story is written in
blood. Of the atrocity of the Spanish measures for Christianizing
the aborigines, we need only to appeal to Spanish authorities. It
was the baptism of blood that was rendered to these simple, guUe-
less natives, whom Columbus slaughtered and enslaved, till even in
his lifetime the native races within his reach were practically exter
minated." Proceeding, Bishop Perry says, in reply to a criticism
in an Iowa paper : —
" Nor is it in point to give to the Roman Catholic Church the
credit of Cabot's acknowledged discovery of the North American
Continent because of the general acceptance, vrith more or less fre
quent protests, of the papal supremacy at the time of the Cabots,
and in the reign of the Tudor Henry VII. Rome had not then, as
subsequently was the case, utterly destroyed the independence of the
national churches of Europe. The Galilean church, the church of
Germany, the churches of Sweden, Norway and Spain, were stiU, in
a measure, each and all free of absolute subjugation to Rome. In
England the Uberties of ' holy church ' — the Church of England,
which, since the days of Augustine of Canterbury, has its continuous,
uninten-upted existence, and knows no break in the succession of its
bishops since the Apostles' time, and holds its property constitution-
aUy, legally, unchaUenged, and holds its property rightly, even by the

67
confession of the intrusive Roman Catholic hierarchy of this pres
ent century, are acknowledged in magna charta, and magna charta
won from a perfidious tyrant, confessedly an abject slave of Rome,
by an English archbishop at the head of the barons of the land,
was anathematized by a Roman pontiff, and exists as a foundation-
stone of constitutional liberty in England and in our own land, in
spite of Rome. If King Henry VII., in sending forth the Cabots in
1497 to make discoveries in the West in direct defiance of the bulls
of Pope Alexander VI. giving the countries west of the ' line of
demarkation and exdusion ' to Spain to hold as a fief of Rome, to
the utter prohibition of aU other peoples, can still be regarded as ' a
faithful Roman Catholic,' we faU to see what Une of conduct would
make one a Protestant. If the Cabots — in sailing the seas and in
f ormaUy taking possession of the lands spedally given to Spain by
the 'Borgia' Pope, who daimed to act, in this partition of theilUm-
itable west between Portugal and Spain, as the -vicar of Christ — were
Roman CathoUcs, we shall not be any longer surprised at the cool
effrontery of dsums we have ourselves seen in modern Roman Cath
oUc newspapers that George Washington was received into the
Church of Rome on his death-bed, and that thirteen of the signers
of the dedaration of independence were members of this same Ro
man communion !
" It must not be forgotten that there were many discoverers of
America before Columbus. Lea-ving out of view the claims of the
Basque, the Irish, and the Welsh, there is no reason to doubt for a
moment that the hardy Norsemen from Norway and Iceland discov
ered the North American mainland fuUy five hundred years before
Columbus set saU from Palos, and that these vikings of old wintered
again in their -vinland somewhere on the New England or Nova Sco
tia coast, between Point Judith and Cape Breton. The sighting of
an insignificant West Indian Island by the Genoese adventurer, seek
ing ''Cipango' (Japan), 'Cathay' (China), and the 'land of Ind,'
and ignorant to his dying day that he had found else, was, therefore,
in view of these Columbian discoveries, of comparatively little mo
ment to the world at large, which had long known of islands to the
westward, or to ns, the people of the United States.
" Our interest, as a race and a nation, centres in the discovery of
the American continent on June 24, St. John Baptist's day, 1497. by
Cabot, saiUng under the authority of King Henry VII., of England.
It is on the ground of this priority of discovery of the continent, on
which the feet of Columbus never trod, and on which his eyes never
looked, that, as Richard HakUngt, prebendary of Westminster, as-

68
sures us m his ' Westem Planting,' the English crown and common.
wealth based their right to occupy the West, despite the Borgia's
buU. The great statesman, Edmund Burke, in his ' European Set
tlements,' published a century and a half ago, reiterates the daim.
"It is in consequence of this discovery of the continent by
Cabot, and in pursuance of this asserted right to people the land on
which the cross of England's church had been first planted, and to
which the arms of England were afiixed by the discoverer, who had
not the fear of the Spanish king or the Roman pontiff before his
eyes, that the great historical fact is due that we, the people of the
United States, owe nothing to Columbus, nothing to Spain, nothing
to Rome. In fact, whatever maybe the final judgment of history as to
the priority of discovery and settlement of the continent of North
America, and the rights of ' glory ' inhering thereto ; conceding even
for the sake of argument alone, the assertion of his eminence. Car
dinal Gibbons, that to the Roman Catholic Church must, of necessi
ty, be attributed all that was done iu the new world since Columbus
until the rise of the Reformation (Gibbons' ' The Claims of the
CathoUc Church to the Making of the RepubUc,' pp. 3, 5, The Cath
olic Truth Sodety, St. Paul, Minn., 1892) ; granting that Henry VII.
and the Cabots were ' good CathoUcs,' as the Dubuque Telegraph
kindly reminds us, though it fails to explain how king and admiral
could be good Catholics when undertaking to rob Spun of posses
sions exdusively given to her by the buU of Pope Alexander VI. ;
conceding, even, as the cardinal further diums, that much of the soU
of our middle west ' has been fertUized by the sweat and blood of
(Roman) CathoUc explorers, founders of colonies and missionaries '
(' Gibbons' Claims of the Catholic Church,' etc., p. 4) — still the fact
remains that we, the people of the United States, owe nothing to
the Latin dvilization, nothing to the Roman type of Christianity."
The above is certainly convincing to all intelligent
people. But Bishop Perry proceeds : —
"The world given, albdt he knew it not, by Columbus to Spsun,
long since passed away from Spanish rule or influence. The North
American continent first seen, not by Columbus, but by Cabot, sail
ing under the EngUsh flag and under the authority of the EngUsh
crown, is neither Spanish in its discovery, its founding, its history,
its present state, nor is it Spanish in its faith, its institutions, its civil
and religious freedom, and its ideas of liberty and law. Mexico and
the South American repubUcs are the acknowledged results of the

69
Spanish discovery, the Latin dvilization, the Roman Christianity ; we
daim, then, that as a nation, as a race, as individuals, we are nothing
to Spain ; nothing to Rome ; nothing to Columbus. In the struggle
for the possession, the occupancy, the supremacy of this continent,
lasting now for centuries, our English-bom sires, our own Anglo-
American fathers, wrenched, by a mighty and sustained effort, this
country of ours from the domination of Spain, France, and Rome.
It was by colonization, by conquest, by purchase, that this was
accomplished. Had Spain maintained her hold on the territory of
the middle west, the Inquisition — the establishment of which was
attempted on Iowa soil a century and a-half ago — would havestUl
existed here, as it did untU lately in Mexico and Southern California.
Freedom of consdence would have stiU existed here as it did till
lately in Mexico and Southern California. Freedom of conscience
would have been denied in the Southwest as it was but a hundred
years ago in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and throughout the
Spanish domain. Had we not been -victors in the fray in those ' holy
wars' of our ancestors against the French and Indians, the soldiers
of the Grande Monargue and their savage allies, the baptized con
verts of the Jesuit fathers, (but, as Parkman, in his ' Hsdf Century
of Conflict,' assures us, each ' a savage stiU ' ), there would have
been no Uberty, dther dvil or reUgious, for us, as the attitude of the
French Canadians — bishops priests, and popes — in refusing to
make common cause -with our fathers in throwing off the EngUsh
yoke at the time of the Revolutionary struggle of 1776, plainly shows.
In fact, that our people here in Iowa and throughout the regions once
under the Spanish rule, are not peons such as exist in Spanish Mexi
co ; that elsewhere in the West and throughout the territory of the
lakes they are not habitants, such as are found in the French Roman
CathoUc provinces of Canada, is due to the fact that our discovery,
our descent, our institutions, laws, ideas, speech and faith, are Eng
Ush, and not derived from the Latin peoples, or the Church of Rome.
" It is a result of this triumph of the English race and the Eng
lish futh, the English ideas of Uberty, law and life itself, that on this
continent, redeemed by our fathers from the Latin peoples and the
Roman faith, we to-day Americanize the crowds of Latin and Ro
manist immigrants coming to us from abroad ; teach them our lan
guage ; inspire them with our ideas of freedom ; give them the full
est liberty of consdence ; permit them to exerdse even a Ucense of
speech ; raise them to a recognition of rights of morals, of truth>
and m^e them at last worthy dtizens of our great repubUc."

70
Probably the most scholarly and exhaustive work on
Columbus is that entitied " Christopher Columbus," by
Dr. Justin Winsor. It is in two volumes, and is pub
lished by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston. Referring
to this book, the Boston Herald Q^ov., 189 1) says: —
" Dr. Justin Winsor is one of the ablest scholars in American
antiquities that the country has produced. He has more knowledge
of the sources and critical points in American history than any other
man, and his 'Narratives and Critical History of America' is a per
fect mine of materials for the enlarged study of the settlement of the
American continent and the development of different nationaUties
upon our soil. He is not a writer in the sense that Motley and
Parkman and Prescott are writers. He does not conceal the work
of the critical student in a brilliant and flowing narrative. He does
not aim at that result, and has not the imaginative gift in the treat
ment of historical subjects which would secure it. His strength is in
another direction. He excels in the exploration of the sources of
materials, in selecting the critical points and veiifjring the authorities
concerning them.
"In this volume on Columbus he has employed the same
method which he used in editing and in part writing the ' Historical
and Critical History of America.' His aim seems to have been to go
to the sources of history and to separate the legends from the facts
in regard to Columbus. Few men have been more written about
and had more romances invented to fill out the idea of what they
ought to have been. Dr. Winsor in the opening chapter of his work
points out what the sources of information are and what their value
is. They are mostiy Spanish, and to a considerable extent they are
the writings of Columbus himself. It is a remarkable fact that
shortly after the discovery of America, Columbus was involved in
such disgrace, mainly through his own infirmities of character, that
the explorers who succeeded him had much more consideration from
their contemporaries than was given to him.
"The early Ufe of Columbus is searched for the promises of
genius with no results, and his attempts to enlist Prince Henry of
Portugal in his enterprise for the discovery of India are shown to
have been unsuccessful. Dr. Winsor relates none of the legendary
stories which are told about his success with Ferdinand and IsabeUa.
He simply describes his final agreement -with Queen Isabella of
Spain and the success of his first voyage, taking hardly more space
to tell the whole story than Columbus took to teU about the events

71
of the day on which he first discovered land, Oct. 12, 1492. It seems
to be the purpose of Dr. Winsor to avoid the beaten narrative in
this work, and to maintain his critical h-eatment from bepnning to
end. He tears away mthlessly all tiie romance from the discovery
of America. The great interest of Columbus and his companions
was to find gold m the new land, and though others have maintained
that Columbus was actuated by higher motives than his assodates,
he appears in this narrative as greedy and as mean as were the men
who afterward clothed him in chams and sent him back to Spain a
prisoner in one of his own vessels.
" Columbus wanted the earth as a retum to him from his sover
eign for the discovery of America. He was keenly sensitive to the
value of money, and not particularly scrupulous as to where or how
he got it. This excessive desire for money and for the recognition
of his services to Spain, disdosed to the court that he was an insin
cere man and not capable of foUowing out to advantage the discov
eries which he had made. This was the reason he was not treated
with more consideration by Ferdinand and Isabella. He exaggerated
the importance of his discovery, and lUced to make all the show he
could. " Dr. Winsor speaks with great plainness of his weaknesses. He
says : ' When we view the character of Columbus in its influence on
the minds of men, we find some strange anomalies. Before his pas
sion was tainted with the ambition of wealth and its consequences,
and whUe he was urging the acceptance of his views for their own
sake, it is very evident that he impressed others in a way that never
happened after he had secured his privUeges. It is after this turning-
point of his life that we begin to see his falsities and indiscretions,
or, at least, to find record of them. The incident of the moving
Ught in the night before his first landfall is a striking instance of his
daring disregard of all the qualities that help a commander in his
dominance over his men. It needs Uttie discrimination to discern
the utter deceitfulness of that pretence. A noble desire to win the
loftiest honors of the discovery did not satisfy a mean, insatiable
greed. He blunted every sentiment of generosity when he deprived
a poor saUor of his pecuniary reward. That there was no actual
Ught to be seen is apparent from the distance that the discoverers
sailed before they saw land, since, if the light had been ahead, they
would not have gone on, and if it had been abeam, they would not
have left it. The evidence is that of himself and a thraU, and he
kept it secret at the time. The author of the " Historic " sees the
difficulty, and attempts to vaporize the whole, saying that the light

72
was spiritual and not physical. Navarrete passes it by as a thing
necessary for the fame of Columbus to be ignored. A second m-
stance of Columbus' luckless impotence, at a time when an honor
able man would have reUed upon his character, was the attempt to
make it appear that he had reached the coast of Asia by imposing
an oath on his men to that effect, in penalty of having their tongues
wrer :Led out if they recanted. One can hardly conceive a more de
basing exercise of power. His insistence upon territorial power was
the serious mistake of his life. He thought, in making an agree
ment with his sovereigns to become a -viceroy, that he was securing
an honor ; he was, in truth, pledging his happiness and beggaring
his Ufe. He sought to attain that which the fates had unfitted him
for, and the Spanish monarchs, in an evil day, which was in due
time their regret, submitted to his hallucinated dictation. No man
ever evinced less capadty for ruling a colony. The most sorrowful
of all the phases of Columbus' character is that hapless coUapse
when he abandoned all faith in the natural world and his premonition
of it, and threw himself headlong into the vortex of what he caUed
inspiration.' " This is a new light upon the career of Columbus, precisely the
knowledge that was wanted to fill out our knowledge of the man.
Dr. Winsor has another passage, in which he sketches the poUcy of
Columbus toward the natives in the countries he found. He says:
'The people he went to save to Christ were easy to exterminate.
He mourned bitterly that his own efforts were iU requited. He had
no pity for the misery of others, except they be his dependents and
co-sharers of his purposes. He found a poUcy worth commemorating
in slitting noses and tearing off the ears of naked heathen. He vin
dicates his success by impressing upon the world that a man settmg
out to conquer the Indies must not be judged by the amenities of
life which belong to a quiet rule in established countries. Yet, with
the chance to estabUsh a humane life among peoples ready to be
moulded to good purposes, he sought from the very first to organize
among them the inherited evils of estabUshed countries. He talked
a great deal about making converts of the poor souls, whUe the very
first sight which he had of them prompted him to consign them to
the slave mart, just as if the first step to Christianize was the step
which unmans.'
" It is to Columbus that we trace the Spanish law which allowed
every colonist to exerdse the vilest absolute power over as many na
tives as his means and rank entitied him to hold. This may be
oaUed blackemng the character of Columbus, but if these facts have

73
been suppressed by other historians, it is high time that they were
brought out. The life of Columbus has been written about as the
story of American history has been written, — to please public senti
ment and to magnify the great discoverer ; but Dr. Winsor has told
the story according to the plain facts and has no false charity for his
hero. His dosing paragraph on Columbus is a severe summing up
of his character : —
" ' We have seen a pitiable man meet a pitiable death. Hardly
a name in profane history is more august than his. Hardly another
character in the world's record has made so little of its opportunities.
His discovery was a blunder; his blunder was a new world ; the new
world is his monument I Its discoverer might have been its father ;
he proved to be its despoUer. He might have given its young days
such a benignity as the world likes to assodate with a maker; he
might have been an unselfish promoter of geographical science ; he
proved a rabid seeker for gold and -viceroyalty. He might have won
converts to the fold of Christ by the kindness of his spirit ; he gained
the execrations of the good angels. He might, like Las Casas, have
rebuked the fiendishness of his contemporaries; he set them an
example of perverted beUef. The triumph of Barcelona led down to
the ignominy of ValladoUd, with every step in the degradation
palpable and resultant.'
" The New York Sun, reviewing Mr. Winsor's book, says : —
" ' It is, of course, weU understood that the discovery of the new
world by Columbus was no discovery at aU in the scientific sense of
the word. There was nothing calculated and expected; it was a
mere chance faU. The man who set forth from Palos did not find
what he was searching for, but stumbled upon something which he
had not sought. It would be preposterous to liken his stroke of
luck to the achievements of those astronomers who, by persistently
tuming their telescopes to a certan quarter of the heavens, have de
tected the existence of a planet which they knew must be there,
owing to certain disturbances observed in the orbits of other mem
bers of the solar system. Neither, if we regard an exploit in mari
time discovery as a problem distinctly formulated and worked out to
its solution, can the accidental success of Columbus be ranked with
the rounding of the Cape of Good Hope by Vasco de Gama or with
MageUan's ^covery of a passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific' "
In an article in Harper's Monthly for April, 1892,
Eugene Lawrence writes : —
But who was this famous navigator, and what were his character

74
and aims ? The common legend pdnts him m saintUke and super
human colors. No man was so wise, gentie, leamed, studious,
humane. To several of his recent biographers he is without a fault,
a Numa, a Washington, -with even a higher aim. With more than
chivalric austerity he prepares himself for his rare achievements;
heaven guides him on his way; he works miracles; sorrows and
afflictions follow him; majestic and godlike, he passes away from
among men without a blemish and without a fault. Such he is to
De Lorges, Belloy, and the Abbe Cadoret. Irving's delightful biog
raphy admits his faults, but softens them into venial errors. His
hero is clothed in the fairest drapery of his matchless style. The
common legend has filled all modern histories untU the whole story
of Columbus is wrapped in a cloud of falsehood. And yet there is
some truth in the picture. Columbus possessed an unrivaUed
strength of character and wUl, a mind of rare power and sagadty.
He was strong as Hercules in fordng his way into distant seas, but,
unlike Hercules, rather committed than redressed wrongs. Never
was there a more striking difference than that between the tradi
tional Columbus of the biographers, and the Columbus of true his
tory, of his contemporaries.
The Columbus of history is one of its least pleasing characters.
He was evidently a sea rover and a buccaneer. He sold his services
to Rene of Anjou or Charles of France indlfferentiy. A rude, uned
ucated seaman, he joined in the massacre of honest traders and use
ful men. Time somewhat softened his harsher traits, but his earUer
impulses never left him. He became familiar with the slave-trade
in Portugal, and introduced it to the New World. He treated the
natives of the new land with pitiless severity. He threw them into
chains, cut off their hands and feet, or sold them as cannibals to mis
ery and death. He probably invented the fiction of the Caribs only
to destroy them. Las Casas thought that the judgments of heaven
had fallen upon the mercUess discoverer.
In almost every tr^t of moral excellence Columbus seems
equaUy wanting. To the Spanish settiers in Hispaniola he was a
hated tyrant, a cruel usurper. He threw Moxica over the walls of
his fort with his own hands, and spumed him as he feU. His victims,
hung by the neck, shocked the humanity of BobadUla. It was be-
Ueved that Columbus and his brothers planned a new empire in ths
Indies, and hoped to throw off the yoke of Spain ; in later years
Columbus engaged in a treasonable correspondence with Genoa.
His ingratitude to the Knzons, his betrayal of Beatrix Enriquez, his

7S
falsehoods, his fierce bursts of rage, his avarice, his revenge, his wild
ambition, his pious frauds, his fanatical faith, can never be forgotten ;
they may be forgiven. Harsh, fierce, severe, the features of Colum
bus look down upon us over the flight of four centuries, the symbol
of his cruel age.
Columbus found the natives of America fuU of the passion for
gold. The guttering partides had for them an irresistible attraction,
as to so many of what are caUed the educated races. They searched
in the rivers and sands for gold, and when they had found it, hung it
in their ears and noses. Sometimes the more highly cultivated beat
it into plates, which they fastened around thdr necks. It was their
chief and almost only omament, almost thdr only dress ; they used,
too, paint, feathers, and strings of pearls. The universaUty of this
strange passion for the ductile metal in dvilized and savage man is
without an explanation ; it is natural. We are told that there are
ants that heap together gUttering particles of predous or colored
stones ; it is tiidr instinct. In Columbus the passion raged with a
violence sddom kno-wn. He dreamed of golden palaces, heaps of
treasure, and mines teeming with endless wealth. His cry was every
where for gold. Every moment in his fierce avarice, he would fancy
himself on the brink of boundless opulence ; he was always about to
seize the treasures of the East painted by Marco Polo and Mande^
viUe. " Gold," he wrote to the king and queen, " is the most valua
ble thing in the world ; it rescues souls from purgatory and restores
them to the joys of paradise."
It was something of his early pirate Ufe that stirred him in his
plans of discovery. He was always the buccaneer ; he was always a
slave-trader. He selected the port of Navidad because it seemed a
convenient harbor for slave-ships. He made slaves wherever he
went. In his fierce avarice, when he found the naked Indians had
Uttle gold, he proposed to seU them, and thus estabUsh a wide source
of profit. Gold he must have by some means. He urged upon the
king and queen his infamous project. They seemed at first to disap
prove, and afterward countenanced it. They could scarcdy fail to
see that hunting the helpless natives through the islands and the con
tinent to seU them into slavery was not a Christlike trade. They
gentiy rebuked the discoverer, but soon after we find them lending
their approval. " Let him be informed," they wrote, " of what has
transpired respecting the cannibals that came to Spain. He has
done well," etc. Soon every Spaniard who sailed to America became
a slave-trader. Ojeda and Americus Vespudus filled their ships with
" cannibals," and the brothers of Columbus foUowed the example of
the admiral. A boundless horror settled upon the new-discovered

76
lands. Las Casas thought the sickness and pains that feU on Colum
bus a judgment for the woes he had inflicted upon the helpless In
dians. In a speech at Quiney, Mass., Oct. 22, 1892, Hon.
Charles Francis Adams said : —
The discovery of America by Columbus was one of the greatest
misfortunes that ever befeU the earth, which he would prove. He
had no word against Christopher Columbus ; he accomplished one
of the greatest feats. He would not caU him a thief or a fraud ; he
was a great man, but somewhat of a crank, for after he discovered
America he showed his incompetency, and introduced slavery. The
discovery of America was an acddent, and if Columbus had never
lived the discovery of America would not have been long delayed.
Who did Columbus have with him when he discovered America ?
Ferdinand, one of the worst bigots, and Charles V., who made Eu
rope a hell. Behind these men was the Roman CathoUc faith and
Inquisition. What was the result of the discovery as far as Spain
was concerned ? In answer to this question Mr. Adams read from a
recently-pubUshed book which said that the opening of the new
world was the greatest curse of Spain. Who was on the throne but
that monkeyed bigot, PhUlip IL, who drew miUions of treasure to
crush out the Protestant religion in Europe ? Why did he not suc
ceed ? Because of the Puritan. Four years ago Great Britain cde-
brated the defeat of the Spanish army which tried to crush out Pro
testantism in Europe. Those who came with Columbus introduced
the Inquisition and slavery.
America was discovered four hundred years ago. The first one
hundred and twenty-eight years following was a history that is a dis
grace to the human race. There is not a crime but what is recorded
upon its pages. Spain represented everything that was bad in the
eyes of God. We tum from the bloody hands of the Spaniards to
those suffering men and women who landed on Plymouth Rock.
They did not come here for the thirst of gold, but that they might
worship God. Look over this country and where do you find good
for the future ? Only as far as the light from Plymouth Rock has
gone. In closing, Mr. Adams said he had no word against Columbus ;
he was a brave man, and is entitled to all that great results imply.
Just so long as the rule that went with Columbus ruled America, just
so long was it as bad as pen could picture ; just so far as the lessons
of those who landed on Plymouth Rock has been given, God's work
has been growing as far as we have foUowed in their footsteps.

77
Before leaving Columbus and the claims which his
church makes for their part in the discovery of America,
we wish to take one more extract from Bishop Perry.
He says : —
We have been told by no less an authority than the late chief
magistrate of the United States, in his prodamation [President Har
rison, July 21, 1892] calUng for the national observance of the four
hundredth anniversary of the discovery of an insignificant West In
dian Island, that " Columbus stood in his age as the pioneer of pro
gress and enlightenment," and the people were, therefore, desired to
give " expressions of gratitude to Divine Providence for the devout
faith of the discoverer."
In the same strain a recent Roman CathoUc essayist proceeds :
" The world is, therefore, indebted to the Christian zeal of a Catho
Uc nation, and its noble queen and her spiritual adviser ; but more
than aU to that great man and heroic CathoUc, Columbus himsdf,
for the accomplishment of this great undertaking, and the opening
up to commerce, dvilization, and Christianity, of the fairest portion
of the earth."
If the traffic between the simple-hearted children of the Antilles
— a trade built up from the first, and by Columbus himself, upon
wrong, robbery, cruelty and murder — and the licensed agents of the
admiral and the insatiate merchants of Spain, be commerce ; if the
devastation of this fiurest portion of the earth by the extermination
of the guUeless natives, following their systematic debasement and
enslavement to fiends in human form, be ci-vilization ; if the whole
management of ecdesiastical affairs with its inquisitors, and the es
tablishment of the auto da fe 'v^ those portions of the New World
under the domination of Spain, save the brief episcopate of Las Cas
as, be Christianity, we can accept these words of reckless assump
tion, uttered with a view of establishing, through Columbus, the late
realization of Alexander's bull in securing for Rome and the papacy
the conversion of the people of the United States. Prefacing a re
cent issue of Cardmal Gibbons' " Claims of the Catholic Church in
the Makmg of the Republic " is a map which gives the true signifi
cance of our Roman CathoUc brethren's interest in the Columbian
observance, and their insistence on the claims of the Genoese adven
turer to be regarded as the discoverer of America.
This cartographic curiosity, vrith its title, " The Original Catho
lic Settlement of the United States," and ite legend, "The sign of
Christo Cross is over it all," and its added motto, "A Soil Fertilized

78
by tiie Blood and Sweat of the CathoUc Explorers, Founders and
Missionaries," gives to the Latin peoples— Spanish, French, and the
« Irish Catholics," as the founders of Maryland are styled — the
credit for the original settlement of four-fifths of the territory of the
United States, thus seekmg to establish, through Columbus and his
foUowers, the claim of the Church of Rome to the very soil compre
hended in Alexander's bull.
This is the view of him who sits in Alexander's seat to-day. The
" espedal reason for which we believe we should commemorate in a
grateful spirit the immortal event of the discovery of America," ar
gues his holiness. Pope Leo XIII., is this : " It is that Columbus is
one of us. In effect," proceeds the pontiff, " Columbus discovered
America at about the period when a great tempest was going to un
chain itself against the church. Inasmuch as that it is permitted by
the course of evente to appreciate the Divine Providence,| it reaUy
seems that the man for whom Liguria honors herself wasfdestined
by a special plan of God to compensate Catholicism for the injury
which it was going to suffer in Europe."
In the Boston Globe of Nov. 23, 1892, was an article
in regard to the savage cruelties of the Spanish Roman
Catholics in New Mexico, from which we quote the
following : —
The church missionaries who accompanied Onate [the Spanish
conqueror of New Mexico in 1 591] into New Mexico, increased in
numbers through the arrival of new brothers from Mexico and Spain.
As the power of the Spaniards became stronger, the spirit of perse
cution against unbeUevers and the disposition to enforce the observ
ance of their own religion upon the native inhabitants gained ground.
The Indians, even many of those who professed conversion to the
Christian faith, were attached to their native reUgion — the worship
of the sun — and when an aUen people attempted fordbly to convert
them, prohibited their ancient rites, threw down their old images,
and compelled them to comply with the ceremonies of the Roman
church and submit to baptism, under the penalties of the inqiusition,
a feeling of great discontent took the place of the kindly regard with
which they had received the Spaniards at their coming.
By degrees the Indians were reduced to a condition of servitude
and compeUed to work in the mines under hard-hearted taskmasters,
which caused their discontent to deepen to a feeling of hatred and
desperation, which showed iteelf in conflict and revolt. Several im
portant conspirades were made among the Indians for the overthrow

79
of the Spaniards, but these revolts were usuaUy discovered too soon
to be effective, or from some other cause could not be carried out
As the Indians showed a spirit of resistance, the rigor and
cnidty of the Spaniards increased, and on a single occasion, in 1640,
in the pursuance of their system of persecution of unbelievers, they
whipped, imprisoned, or hanged forty natives. In 1675 F"*"' Duran,
superior of the great Franciscan monastery at San Yldeinnso, influ
enced by the superstitions of his time, beUeved himself and certain
of his relatives to be bewitched, and accused the Tegua Nation of
bringing upon them this evU state of things. The suspected Indians
were tried before the Spanish courts, and forty-seven Indians were
convicted and were hanged or whipped and enslaved. Yearly the
hardships of the slavery in the mines increased, the religious perse
cution continued, and everything united to drive the natives into
revolt. The above, from the Globe, simply adds to the vol
ume of evidence in regard to the sort of civilization
introduced by the papal church.

Queen Isabella. — In 1892, certain American ladies
proposed to build a monument to Queen Isabella. In
reference to the matter, Hon. Gideon J. Tucker wrote as
follows to the Albany, N. Y., Times : —
I fear the projectors have not studied very fully the real charac
ter and history of Isabella, else they would have discovered that but
littie can be found in them of which either as women, as Americans,
or as philanthropists, our wives, mothers and sisters wUl feel proud.
IsabeUa, in fact, was one of the worst of bad monarchs who have
cumbered the earth, and was the author of cruelties toward her sub
jects of which the simple record will appal any sentimental admirer.
It is an nngradous thing, perhaps, to denounce a woman, espedaUy
a dead woman, but the truth of history is more important than any
individual consideration, and the misdeeds of a woman in high place
are the more flagrant because she is a woman. In this case it would
seem to be a public duty to protest against the proposed honor to a
pitiless tyrant. The soil of a free republic should never be contami
nated by the erection of statues to the honor of any royal personages
whatever, least of aU of one who caused such suffering to mankind
as Queen IsabeUa of Spain. Let us examine a few of her acte.

8o
I. Isabella was a usurper ; she was not the lawful possessor, by
descent, of the hereditary throne of Castile. She was an intruder
upon the rights of her niece, who was the legitimate heir. Isabella's
brother, Henry IV., a luxurious and worthless king, had exdted by
his incapacity a rebeUion among his subjects, the result of which was
that his daughter Juana was deprived of her right of succession and
immured for life in a convent, and Isabella mounted the throne upon
' Henry's death, in 1474. She soon after married Ferdinand, King of
Arragon. They lived together, says Voltaire, "not as spouses,
whose goods would be in common, under the husband's control, but
as two independent but strictly allied sovereigns. They neither
loved nor hated each other ; saw each other indeed but seldom, and
had consulted separate ministers and councUs of state." During
their reign the most of the present territory of Spain was united
under their rule.
II. Ferdinand and Isabella banished from Spain all the Jews,
permitting them to carry along with them their movable effects, ex
cept precious metals or gems, which they were espedaUy prohibited
from taking out of the kingdom. AU Christians were forbidden to
give them any assistance, even of the necessaries of Ufe. There
went forth from Catalonia, Arragon, Valencia, CastUe, and the rest
of Spun, about three-fourths of a miUion of Jews of aU ages, most
of whom perished miserably, so that their sufferings in this expul
sion were said to have been comparable to those inflicted by Vespa
sian and Titus at the capture of Jerusalem.
The historian Michelet says: "There was an absolute spolia
tion and banishment from Spain of an entire people. Eight hun
dred thousand Jews informed by royal decree the 31st of March,
1494, that they must leave the soil of Spain by the 31st of July, thus
affording them but four months in which to dispose of their proper
ty — an impossible thing, a thing intended to be impossible. They
were obUged to give away everything for almost nothing — ' a house
for an ass, a -vineyard for a strip of linen.' The Uttle gold they man
aged to secrete was seized and taken from tbem on the joumey, and
in many of the countries in which the unhappy fugitives sought an
asylum they were murdered and their bodies ripped open to search
for the treasure they were supposed to have swallowed. They fled
into Africa, Portugal, and Italy, dying everywhere by thousands
from hunger and exposure and from frightful maladies, which,
breaking out in their dense and squalid crowds, spread an avenging
pestUence through Europe."
III. Boabdil, King of Granada, after a heroic defense of his

8i
realm and people, surrendered them to Ferdinand and IsabeUa in
1491. The solemn stipulations of peace guaranteed that his people
should remam unmolested in their property and in the Mohamme
dan religion. The treaty was deUberately broken by the vicious
king and queen. For many years the Moors were relentlessly perse
cuted, and at last, by royal order, their expulsion from Spain was
decreed. In all, three miUions, protesting against Christian viola
tion of faith, crossed into Africa, carrying with them an undying re
sentment. IV. At the taking of Granada, a countless number of manu
scripts, preserved by the Moors, a collection of the seven hundred
years of their stay in Spain— manuscripts in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac,
and we know not what else— feU into the hands of Ferdinand and
Isabella. These bigoted Christian soverdgns bumed them all I
What precious and irrecoverable knowledge was lost to the world
by this act of pure vandalism the world wiU never leam. Doubtiess
there were inestimable Jewish records among them. Some of the
mspired books named and referred to in the Old Testament are lost,
as we aU know ; and copies of these may have been among those
consigned to the flames. What aid in developing the history of
Westem Africa and Northern Africa the profaner writings might
also have afforded us we cannot now guess. We can only deplore
that the entire mass of manuscripts was destroyed, and stigmatize
the perpetrators as entitied to the condemnation of the civiUzed
world. V. Ferdinand and IsabeUa estabUshed the Spanish Inquisition,
prindpally for the conversion and punishment of Jews and Moham
medans, a tribunal which, according to the Spanish writer, Llorente,
burned aUve 31,912 persons. Numbers of Jews and Moors, who felt
themselves in danger of its sentence, fled from Spain to Rome,
whithet they were in-vited by Pope Alexander VL, and where they
received from him protection and succor. The admirers of Ferdi
nand and IsabeUa's inquisition were so indignant at the refuge and
favor humanely afforded by the Pope to their escaped victims that
they nicknamed Alexander " the Moorish Pope " and denounced
him as " the friend of the Turkish Sultan Bajazet."
VI. It cannot be denied that the discovery of America was due
to the hope of conquest and wealth rather than to any sdentific or
humanitarian motive. The money advanced by IsabeUa to Colum
bus for his expedition was secured to her by contracts, which stipu
lated cautiously that her own kingdom of CastUe should alone profit
by any discovery, and that her CastiUan subjects should have the ex-

82
elusive right to aU benefits derived from the voyage. It was also
provided that Columbus should be the governor-general for Ufe over
aU discovered countries. The bad faith and the ingratitude of the
Spanish sovereigns were again shown in the sequel. Six years after,
Columbus was suddenly deprived by them of his office as governor
and was sent home to Spain a prisoner in chains, for which outrage
no reparation was ever made to him.
VII. The Spanish colonial poUcy originating under Ferdinand
and IsabeUa has been the disgrace of Spain. Their officials never
treated either the natives whom they found in the West Indies,
Mexico, and Central and South America, or the Africans they subse-
quentiy imported thither, as human beings. We have the most un
questionable testimony of their barbarities from the leamed and hu
mane Las Casas, Bishop of Chiapas, Mexico. Touched by the
cruelties of which he was witness, he has left on record his eternal
protest against them. He represents that " almost all the nations of
Spanish America were mUd and timid people by nature, naked and
weaponless, and of that feeble temperament which predisposes men
to slavery." The Spanish conquistadores took advantage of the
facUity which their unwarlike nature afforded for the wholesale de
struction of the natives. Before the death of IsabeUa every soul of
the 40,000 red-skinned inhabitants of the Bahamas had perished un
der the lash of the slave-driver, and the race was blotted from the
face of the earth. In Cuba, Hispaniola, and the adjacent islands,
he declares that 1,200,000 perished ; that they were hunted to death
by firearms and bloodhounds like vrild beasts. Upon the continent
he estimates that the mortality was proportionately great ; and the
good bishop's deUberate condusion is that more than 12,000,000 of
Americans died under Spanish rule in the first century, from ex
hausting labor in mines and other unaccustomed occupations, by
wanton massacres, by privation and exposure. Perhaps this is an ex
aggeration of numbers, but so great was the waste of human life, so
entirely were the natives extirpated in some parts of Spanish Ameri
ca, that Las Casas advised the importation of the more hardy Afri
cans, and thus negro slavery first became planted in America.
AU these facts are easUy substantiated. They condemn the
memory of Isabella. If American women raise a statue to her mem
ory the bronze can neither confer honor upon her nor credit to them.
So much for " Her Catholic Majesty," the patron of
Columbus. And yet Roman Catholics appear to be perfectly

«3
ignorant of these facts. Tn a recent speech before the
A. O. H. in Plainfield, N. J., one Judge Wilhere (an
« eminent " Roman Catholic, of course) spoke as follows :—
"Why do these people faU to remember that this country was
discovered by a Catholic ? Why, it is a matter that is accepted by
most people as historical that old St. Brendin, nine hundred years
before Columbus came to America, with his Irish ssdlors first dis
covered the continent of America. But, leaving that out, Columbus
discovered America; and who was he, pray? He was a Catholic!
The first man that leaped from a caravel of Columbus and trod upon
American soU was Patrick Whelan, an Irish CathoUc. Who was it
that first blessed this new hemisphere that was discovered f Why,
the old Spanish monk that saUed -with Columbus."
If Roman Catholics were only allowed to read his
tory, they would be saved much ridicule from their more
intelligent fellow-citizens.

We now pass on to another interesting matter, under
the heading —
Pope Pius, Jeff Davis and the Confederacy. —
We have referred to this matter previously, in con
nection with Archbishop Hughes' record in war times,
but shall here give it commensurate space
In a speech recently delivered in Plainfield, N. J.,
before the A. O. H., by one " Judge " Wilhere, he said : —
" In later times (talk about loyalty of the Catholic clergy I) these
A. P. As. were trying to tear down the flag. When Abraham Lin
coln — (God bless his soul I) a great and a noble and a pure man he
was — when Abraham Lincoln felt that the Uberty of this country,
and felt that the very existence of this govemment was in danger,
and he desired to appeal to France and to Spain and other CathoUc
powers in order that they might keep their hands off and in order
that they should not do like England was doing, because England
was giving aid and comfort to the Confederate forces and the Con
federate govemment in order to disrupt this Union and to destroy its
free institutions, when Abraham Lincoln desired that the Catholic
poweis of the world should morally, if not materially, aid the forces

84
of constitutional govemment, the forces which were battling for this
flag, who did he send ? He sent that other noble soul of blessed
memory. Archbishop John Hughes of New York, as a representa
tive of the United States government to the CathoUc powers of
Europe in 1861, in order to secure their moral, if not their material
aid, so that Uberty might live in this land."
The above statement, in various forms, has been re
peated over and over again by Irish speakers and writers,
and has been properly treated under the heading " Arch
bishop Hughes." The fact of the matter is, Hughes'
influence abroad was absolutely nil. Not a single histo
rian of repute mentions any service accomplished by him
for this nation. But what were the relations of the papa
cy towards the confederacy ?
If any of our readers will go to the nearest public
library and inquire for " Memoirs of Jefferson Davis," by
his wife. Vol. IL, pages 446 and 447, they will find these
words : —
" During Mr. Davis's imprisonment the Holy Father [Pone Pius
IX.] sent a likeness of himself, and wrote underneath it, with his
own hand, attested by Cardinal AntoneUi: 'Come unto me all ye
who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' The dig
nity and the man both iUustrated the meek and lowly Lord of all,
whose vicegerent he was.
" Mr. Davis's early education had always indined him te see in
the Roman Catholics friends who could not be alienated from the
oppressed." In "Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia" for 1863, p.
Sao, we read : —
Letter from Mr. Davis to the Pope.
Richmond, Sept. 23, 1863.
J^ery Venerable Sovereign Pontiff : The letters which you have
written to the clergy of New Orleans and New York have been com
municated to me, and I have read with emotion the deep grief there
in expressed for the ruin and devastation caused by the war which is
new being waged By the United States against the States and people
which have selected me as their President, and your orders to yonr

8s
dergy to exhort the people to peace and charity. I am deeply sen
sible of the Christian charity which has impelled you to this reiter
ated appeal to the dergy. It is for this reason that I feel it my duty
to express personally, and in the name of the Confederate States,
our gratitude for such sentiments of Christian good-feeling and love,
and to assure your HoUness that the people, threatened even on
their own hearths with the most crud oppression and terrible car
nage, is desirous now, as it has always been, to see the end of this
impious war ; that we have addressed prayers to heaven for that is
sue which your Holiness now desires ; that we desire none of our
enemy's possessions, but that we fight merely to resist the devasta
tion of our country and the shedding of our best blood, and to force
them to let us Uve in peace under the protection of our own institu
tions, and under our laws, which not only insure to everyone the en
joyment of his temporal rights, but also the free exercise of his reli
gion. I pray your Holiness to accept on the part of myself and the
people of the Confederate States, our sincere thanks for your efforts
in favor of peace. May the Lord preserve the days of your Holiness
and keep you under His divine protection. Jefferson Davis.
The following is the Pope's reply, the original of
which is in the treasury department at Washington, in
the " Rebel Archives " :—
To the Illustrious and ffonorable Jefferson Davis, President of the
Confederate States of America :
Illustrious and Honorable Sir — Greeting : We recent
ly received, with aU the kindness due to him, the envoy sent by your
ExceUency to convey to Us your letter dated the 23d of the month
of September of the present year. It was certainly a cause of no
ordinary rejoicing to Us to be informed by this gentleman, and by
the letter of your Excellency, of the Uvely satisfaction you expe
rienced and of the deep sense of gratitude you entertained toward
Us, iUustrious and honorable Sir, when you first perused Our letter
addressed to those Venerable Brothers, John, Archbishop of New
York, and John, Archbishop of New Orleans, on the i8th of Octo
ber of last year, in which We again and again strongly urged and ex
horted those Venerable Brothers, on account of their great piety
and episcopal solidtude, to make it the object of their constant
efforts and of their eamest study, acting thus in Our name to put an
end to that fatal d-vil war prevailing in that country, and to re-estab
lish among the American people peace and concord, as weU as feel-

86
ings of mutual charity and love. It was peculiarly gratifying to Us
to hear that you, iUustrious and honorable Sir, as weU as the people
whom you govern, are animated by the same desire for peace and
tranquiUty which We so eamest inculcated in the letters referred to
addressed to said Venerable Brothers. Would to God that the other
inhabitants of those regions (the Northern people) and their rulers,
seriously reflecting upon the fearful nature of intestine warfare,
might in a dispassionate mood hearken to and adopt the counsels of
peace I We on Our part shaU not cease offering up Our most fer
vent prayers to Almighty God, begging and supplementing Him in
His goodness to pour out upon aU the people of America a spirit of
Christian charity and peace, and to rescue them from the multitudes
of evil now afflicting them. We also pray the same all-clement Lord
of Merdes to shine upon your Excellency the light of His divine
grace, and to unite you and Ourselves in bonds of perfect love.
Given at Rome at St. Peter's, the 3d day of December, 1863, in
the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate. Plus, P. P. IX.
Concerning the above letter, Hon. W. E. Curtis wrote
as follows to the Chicago Daily News : —
" For twenty-five years it has been charged and denied, and de
nied and charged, that the Vatican was in sympathy with the South
during the war. In his political history of the RebeUion, McPher
son, who, in matters of doubt, always and naturaUy leans to the
Northward, says that the church took no offidal action, although
Archbishop Lynch went to Rome as an agent for the Confederacy.
He also gives a letter from Cardinal AntoneUi, addressed to A. Dud
ley Mann, J. M. Mason, and John Slidell, commissioners of the Con
federate States of America, acknowledging on behalf of the Pope the
receipt of a manifesto from Jefferson Davis, and expressing the hope
of the Pope that war between the States may speedily be terminated.
This is all I can find in history on the subject, beyond numerous
general assertions and denials that the Pope did officially recognize
the Confederate government and give Jefferson Davis his august
blessing. That Davis sought the same has never been disputed, and
that he received it has been claimed by nearly aU the historical
writers on the Confederate side. High functionaries of the church
have repeatedly denied that the pontifical benediction was ever pro
nounced upon the Confederacy, and their denial has been accepted
as final. "At the treasury department the other day Mr. Crites, of
Nebraska, the chief of the division of captured and abandoned prop-

87
erty, showed me a timewom paper which was found among the
records captured at the time of the evacuation of Richmond, that
will settle the controversy forever. It has lain all this time m the
pigeon-holes of the department, unknown and unnoticed, whUe the
historians and the theologians have been disputing its existence."
In an article in the North American Review for
October, 1893, by Hon. John Bigelow, we read : —
In the summer of 1862 it was dedded by the Confederate states
men at Richmond that they could not afford to depend entirely upon
the arms of flesh for the success of their cause, and thereupon they
determined to appeal to the sword of the spirit as wielded by the
Church of Rome. The considerations which may be presumed to
have prompted this appeal were : —
1st. The numerical strength of the CathoUcs in the Northern
States who would be likely to relax their zeal In the prosecution of
the war if the Pope discountenanced it, and,
2d. A desire to enUst the active sympathies of the CathoUc
countries of Europe, and espedaUy of France and Austria, then al
ready embarked in the ill-fated scheme to re-establish monarchial
and prelatical supremacy in Mexico.
Perhaps, too, they were encouraged to hope that a sympathetic
word or two from Pius IX. would help to weaken the faltering loyal
ty of Maryland and Missouri, the two Southern States in which
members of the CathoUc communion exert much influence upon
public opinion. Upon the evangeUcal principle of gathering up the
fragmente that nothing be lost, it was accordingly decided at once to
lay siege to the Vatican. Dudley Mann, who became a superfluity
in London on the arrival of Commissioner Mason at his post, was
authorized by Benjamin, the Confederate Secretary of State, to re
pair to Rome and open the trenches vrith the secular arm, to be
speedUy foUowed and reinforced by such spiritual enginery as could
be found available and brought up.in season.
At the same time that Mann was sent to Rome, Fr. Bannon, of
Richmond, vras sent with instructions from Benjamin " to enlighten
the people of Ireland in regard to the trae character of the war," etc.
He was clothed vrith authority to go also to Rome " for the pur
pose," said the secretary, " of obtaining such sanction from the sov
ereign pontiff as wiU strengthen your hands and give effidency to
your action." Fr. Bannon was to receive £20 a. month for his per
sonal expenses, and fare to and fro.
The fiscal agent of the Confederacy in London was instrocted to

88
provide for his other expenses, such as printing, extra travel, and a
suitable remuneration for an associate from the North, " if," — so ran
his instruction, — " you can find one entirely trustworthy and you find
it advisable to secure his aid." This also was to be a Catholic
priest. What Fr, Bannon accomphshed, if anything, by his mission,
beyond getting out of Richmond, which had already become any
thing but a cheerful residence, and having his expenses paid during
his absence, the records of the Confederacy have left no trace. We
can imagine, from what occurred of public notoriety, that his labors
were not rewarded with any such measure of success as to deserve
more attention from the historian than they seemed to have received
frgm the secretary of state, and that could hardly have been less.
A few months after Fr. Bannon embarked on his mission, as if
the Richmond government was already aware that he was not ac
complishing nor likely to accomplish much, either vrith St. Patrick
or St. Peter, Bishop Lynch of Charleston was sent out armed with
a letter of introduction from Benjamin to SlideU, the Confederate
commissioner in Paris, and with something more than a strictly apos
tolic equipment to labor exclusively with the Pope. In his letter of
introduction Benjamin did not explain the purpose of this mission,
but said simply that Lynch "is proceeding to Europe on a visit
which he wUl fully explain to you." He doubtless thought as Mason
did in regard to his troubled dinner-table interview vrith the Earl of
Donoughmore, that what was afoot " had better not be spread on
the records of the State department."
That Dudley Mann accomplished something of his
mission, may be inferred from the following letter : —
" Brussels, Maj 9, 1864.
To the President : Herewith I hs.ve the honor to transmit the let
ter which his HoUness, Pope Pius IX., addressed to your ExceUency
on the 3d of December last. Mr. W. Jefferson Bucannon has obUg-
ingly undertaken its conveyance, and will deUver it to you in person.
This letter wUl grace the archives of the executive office in aU com
ing time. It will live, too, forever in story as the production of the
first potentate who formaUy recognized your official position, and ac
corded to one of the diplomatic representatives of the Confederate
States an audience in an established court palace, like that of St
James and the TuUeries. I have the honor to be, with the most dis
tinguished consideration, your Excellency's most obedient servant.
" A. Dudley Mann.
To his Excellency Jefferson Davis, President C. S. A., Richmond."

In " Religious Persecution," by Rev. John Lee, we
find the following significant foot-note, quoted from the
Baltimore Mirror of Oct. g, 1886 : —
" I will write a letter," said Pope Pius IX., on the fourth of
November, 1863, to Mr. A. Dudley Mann, the Confederate commis
sioner, " for you to convey to Mr. Davis, of such a character that it
may be published for general perusal." " On the 3d of December,"
we are told, " Cardinal AntonelU transmitted to Mr. Mann the Pope's
answer to Mr. Davis, in which he said he was overjoyed to find Mr.
Davis so peaceful in his nature, and expressed a wish that other
rulers and people in America might be animated with the same feel
ings. Within the last few months at Beauvoir, Miss., where Mr.
Davis resides, whUe seated one day on his broad veranda, command
ing a magnificent -view of the Gulf of Mexico, the ex-president of the
Confederacy said to a representative of the press that Pope Pius IX.
was an " angdic man." After the dose of that terrible RebelUon,
the very thoughte of which make us shudder, when, to use the
Pope's language — "the iUustrious and honorable Jefferson Davis,
President of the Confederate States of America " was undergoing a
richly-merited imprisonment, " a voice," he tells us, "came from
afar to cheer and console me in my soUtary captivity. The Holy
Father sent to me his likeness, and beneath it was written by his
own hand, the comforting invitation our Lord gives to aU who are
oppressed, in these words : ' Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis, et ego
reficiam vos, dicit Dominus^ That the inscription was autographic
was attested by ' Al Cardinal Bamabo, December, 1866,' under his
seal." For further information —
Read " Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia " for 1863,
page 820.
Read the Macon, Ga., Telegraph, of November, 1864.
Read the Boston Herald oi Aug. 6, 1884.
Read Chicago Daily News, Jan. 17, 1887.
Read " Memoirs of Jefferson Davis," by his wife.
Vol. II., pages 446, 447 (in all large public libraries).
In a lecture delivered by Priest Dailey, and reported
in the Birmingham, Ala., Age Heraldoi Oct. 19, 1892, we

90
read concerning the Civil War the following words of
this priest : —
" When the spirit of war again ravaged our fair land— ah I ye
veterans, ye can speak — ^ye generals who led them can teU if Catho
Ucs were wanting on any battle-ground. The brave MitcheU, whose
three sons were kUled in our country's service, showed in the Rich
mond Examiner where 92,002 Irish were placed along the front of
the battie, from the Potomac to Vicksburg.
" In the memoirs of the late Jefferson Davis, written by his
vridow, we read : " CathoUcs were friends that knew how to be true
in days of disaster and defeat." What American heart, whether in
Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish bosom, but stiU respecte the black
veU of the Catholic Sister of Charity, remembering the part they
took in the hour of danger."
Rev. Dr. McGovern, a well-known priest of Chicago,
attempted to excuse the Pope's letter to Jefferson Davis,
which brought out the following letter to the Chicago
Tribune : — Chicago, Feb. 26.
Editor of the Tribune :
The letter of the Rev. Dr. McGovem printed in to-day's Tribune
concerning the poUtical influence and attitude of the papacy proves,
if anything, that the popes as poUticians are far from infaUible, and
that it is a serious damage to the reUgion of the Vatican to seek to
make it conserve political purposes. His statement of the causes
which led Pope Pius IX. to recognize Jeff Da-vis' govemment and
to send an affectionate letter to that arch-traitor and upholder of
human slavery, is no doubt true. But what a sad commentary it is
on the wisdom, impartiality, and good judgment of the late Pope
Dr. McGovem's statement is as foUows : —
" Rome was overrun with the sympathizers of the Confederacy
during the winter of i862-'63. The majority were from Maryland,
Virginia, and Kentucky, and some from Northern States. The re
verses of the Northern armies fiUed them with joy, and they all de
clared that success was assured to the South. Those were dark,
dismal days. The good Pope was importuned to recognize the
Confederacy as a precedent for the other nations of Europe. He
resisted aU entreaties, counselled by Cardinals AntoneUi and Bar-
nado. The pressure became most violent. Even the secession of
the CathoUc church in the South from Rome was threatened. It
was then the Pope addressed that letter to the iUustrious President
Davis, reasoning that as there was a de facto govemment he might

91

address the chief mler for the time. It was a Uttie stroke of policy
simply to get rid of his tormentors, and that was aU."
The Pope was at the time not only a sphitual but a temporal
soverdgn, but it was as Pope, not as King of Rome, that he sent
greetings to " the Ulustrious President (Jeff) Davis."

We quote from a recent article : —
TJie Magazine of American History, vol. i6, furnishes the foUow
ing extracts in connection with the mission which A. Dudley Mann
performed to the Vatican as the envoy of Jefferson Davis, in 1862.
After speaking of Cardinal AntoneUi, the Pope's confidential adviser,
as the most briUiant and unscrupulous man of the age, the magazine
says: —
Cardinal AntoneUi instantiy assured Mr. Mann that he would
obtain for him an audience with the pontiff ; he expressed his " un
bounded admiration of the wonderful powers of resistance the
Southern people had shown in a war prosecuted with energy and
aided by the employment of aU the recent improvements in the
insbruments for the destruction of Ufe and property, unparalleled,
perhaps, in the world's history." He asked Mr. Mann several ques
tions concerning President Davis, remarking that he certainly had
created for himself a name that would rank with those of the most
iUnstrious statesmen of modem times.
At the interview with Pius IX., which occurred shortly after
wards, Mr. Mann presented the reasons why secession should be
made absolute. " They were received by the Pope with an approv
ing expression, who remarked that Mr. Mann had reason to be proud
of the self-sacrificing devotion of his countrymen to the cause for
which they were contending."
Shortiy afterwards foUowed the letter of Pius to Jefferson Davis,
several times published in these columns, in which occur the words :
" It was peculiarly gratif3ring to us to hear that you, Ulustrious and
honorable sir, as weU as the people whom you govern, are animated
by the same desire for peace and tranquUity which we so earnestly
inculcated in the letters referred to, addressed to the said Venerable
Brothers. Would to God that the other inhabitants of those regions
(the Northern people) and their rulers, seriously reflecting upon the
fearful nature of intestine warfare, might in a dispassionate mood
hearken to and adopt the counsels of peace."
At a second interview with Cardinal AntoneUi, that ecdesiastic

92
"informed Mr. Mann that the acting representative of the United
States had seen him (the cardinal) the day before in order to remon
strate against the facilities afforded by the government of the holy
See to 'rebels' for entering and sojourning in Rome." The cardinal
said he had replied that he intended to take all such "rebels" under
his special protection, because it -w-ould be asking too much of
humanity to expect them to keep an oath of allegiance to a country
they bitterly detested. Frequently he would take Mr. Mann's hand
and exclaim: "Mon cher monsieur, your goverrmient has accom
plished prodigies alike in the cabinet and in the field."
In the Philadelphia Inquirer of Sept. lo, 1893, was
an illustrated article four columns in length, entitled
"Jefferson Davis at Fortress Monroe," written by Jerome
Titlo-w, late captain of the Third Pennsylvania Heavy
Artillery, in -which occurs this statement concerning the
searching of Jeff Davis by order of Gen. Miles: —
"It ha-ving been reported to Gen. MUes that Da-vis was moody
and morose, the general gave me orders to search the prisoner thor
oughly, and to take everything away from him, money, and anything
with which he might be likely to do himself bodily harm.
"I went to Da-vis' casement, made known my orders to him, and
told him I wished him to take off his clothes, as I was ordered to
search him thoroughly. He complied with some reluctance ani'
contempt. He first turned his pockets and handed me some $260 in
Confederate notes, about $70 in gold and silver, some keys aud a
very handsome pocket knife. I noticed a silken cord arctmd his
neck. I said: —
" 'Mr. Davis, what have you there?'
"After a sUght hesitation he drew from under his undershirt,
attached to the cord, a small silver Catholic medal. He pleaded
with me to aUow him to retain it, as it was a gift from the Pope, who
gave it to him when he was minister to the court of Austria, during
one of his -visits to the Pope. He stated that he had worn it in that
position ever since. I concluded to let him keep it, and after tuming
over the other effects to Gen. Miles, I mentioned the affair of the
medal. The general said: —
" 'That is all right; he can't do much harm vrfth that.'"
Those -who have read the interesting statement of
Prof. S. F. B. Morse concerning the Pope's plot for the

93
overthrow of this republic through the assistance of
Austria, will discover in the above statement a remark
able confirmation — or coincidence, at least.
In a recent letter a correspondent says: —
"In the War of the Rebellion there is a two-sided picture of
Irish loyalty — ^their loyalty to the Confederate States as weU as the
Union cause. In the history of the Confederate States na-vy (by
Scharff, an ex-rebel, pages 495, 496), is an account of the capture in
Sabin's Pass — an entrance to Galveston Bay, off Indianola — of the
'Star of the West,' a United States steamer, whoUy by the Irish,
who boarded her. and Ensign Duggin, in genuine Irish-English, de
manded a surrender, and to him the surrender was made.
"On p. S23. 'History Confederate Navy,' is an account of the
capture of U. S. gunboat ' Sachem.' The ' Sachem ' was manned by
Irish and captured by Irish — ^while aground.
"If you can get the histories referred to, and will do them full
justice, I think much could be shown of the indebtedness of Ameri
cans to Irishmen for the blessings we enjoy — to the 'valorous deeds
and services rendered our country's cause in her struggles for inde
pendence and the preservation of our national existence' by said
Irishmen." But there is so much said of the disloyalty of Roman
Catholics in the Civil War, in various publications, that
we caimot print a tithe of it.

Irish Romanists in the Civil War. — Probably no
statement in recent years has awakened more discussion,
or caused more bad feeling, than the foUo-wing, which
appeared in the New York Sun, in the "Queries" col
umn, August 30, 1 891 . It should be borne in mind that
the Sun is not only the Tammany organ, but it is also
the Irish Roman Catholic daily of New York city. We
print it precisely as it appeared: —
Editor Sun: —
Please republish a table giving the percentages of enlistments of
foreigners in the Federal armies during the rebellion, and a table
giving the percentages of deserters. G. K.

94
ENLISTMEN-rS, 1861-I86S. Per cent.
Native Americans  1,523,000 75.48
Germans  177.800 8.76
Irish  144.ZOO 7.14
British Americans  53.50° 2.60
EngUsh  45.500 z.26
Other foreigners  74,800 3.76
Total  2,018,800
DESERTIONS Per cent.
Irish  72
Germans  16
Americans  5
All others  7
It will be noticed that the correspondent asks the
Sun to "republish" — showing that it had been printed
before. The same statement appeared in the Boston Globe
of Sept. 27, 1 891. We do not know where they got these
figures, but it is not at all probable that two such pro-
papal papers -would manufacture them.
In The American Citizen of April 21, 1894, we
read: —
"Those readers of The Citizen who -visited Boston can see at
The Citizen office a colored diagram, issued by a very reputable
firm of pension attorneys in Washington. On this diagram are the
figures of enlistments and desertions precisely as given above. The
said firm have given out these sheets freely for some years; the fig
ures have been publicly exhibited in the best offices of Washington,
and have never been doubted or disputed. This firm assures The
Citizen that they were taken from official sources, and that there is
not a shadow of doubt of their reliability. But they further say that
the figiires wet-e not compiled, officially — that is, by order of the gov
emment; but by a number of gentlemen interested, who had access
to the various departments."
In fact, the accuracy of the figures was never denied
till very recently, and then from such a source that the
denial is -wholly worthless.

95
It is a weU-kno-wn fact that the editor of the
"Queries" column in the 5mm always speaks as an oracle
—as a final authority, from -whom there is no appeal.
Yet we noticed recently that when asked by a corre
spondent where he got the above figures, he replied that
they -were "sent by a correspondent." Why, then, did
he not so mark them, and why did he allow them to
appear as his o-wn answer to a question? His dodging
is very transparent.
Again: An interested Irishman wrote to Hon. Heniy
Cabot Lodge for information as to the above statistics.
Mr. Lodge in tum wrote to one Ainsworth, of the Pension
Department, who replied that "thenationality of soldiers
was not kept." That may be true of the Pension Depart
ment, but in the War Department the birthplace of every
recruit is to be found. The adjutant-generals of the
different States keep on file the name, birthplace, mili
tary record, etc., of every soldier in the army, and did so
during the war. This fact is kno-mi to every intelligent
person. We do not doubt that the Irish make good soldiers
under strict discipline; in the British army they have a
very fair record; but when they claim — as Congressman
Tarsney did a few years ago — that ' 'while we Irish were
fighting your battles, you Yankees were skulking behind
your woodpiles," then we think it is time to investigate.
These facts are established beyond doubt: —
ist. That the Irish gave fewer men to the Union
army in proportion to their total number in our popula
tion, than any other foreign-bom people.
2d. That the Irish deserted in greater numbers than
all other races combined.
3d. That the first deserter shot was an Irishman.
4th. That the Irish gave fewer brave officers than
any other race— Phil Sheridan being their greatest man ;

96
yet while the Protestant races — Scotch, English, Ger
man, etc., furnished Grant, Sherman, Hooker, Logan,
Burnside, Meade, Schofield, etc., etc., these races make
no boast whatever of what they have done ; while the
Irish ring the changes without cessation on what they
claim their soldiers have done for this country.
In speaking of the comparative merits of Ameri
can and foreign troops during the rebellion, Mr.
Apthorp Gould, in his "Investigations dn the Military
and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers"
(published for the U. S. Sanitary Commission by Hurd
and Houghton, New York), says: —
"How much larger was the purely American element
among the earlier troops, needs not to be recalled to anyone
then in the country."
In referring to the large foreign element 'in the
latter years of the war, the writer says : —
"Another fruitful source of the apparent excess of the for
eign element in the army is to b^ found in the large number
of foreigners who, attracted by the large local bounties fre
quently offered, enlisted for the purpose of obtaining the bounty
money, and then deserted without serving. It is beyond ques
tion that cases were not of rare occurrence when the same
person enlisted very many times, securing bounties in each
case, and being, of course, recorde'd every time as a new
volunteer.'' From the Boston Record we take the following
significant item: —
Washington, June 27, 1892. — Away up in the topmost attic
of the War and Navy Building is stored away, quite out of
sight, a very curious and interesting collection of photographs.
They are tintypes, six hundred and odd in number, and are
fastened with tacks upon three big parallelograms of plank.
Beneath each one ss an inscription telling a story of the war,
for the pictures are those of deserters from the Federal armies
during the rebellion. One fellow whose picture is tacked to
the planks is set down in the memorandum beneath as having
deserted no less than twenty-three times, although he was

97
hardly more than a youth. He no doubt held the deserter's
record for the war, and his name was Patrick Gallagher. On
the other hand, some of the faces in this deserter's art gallery
are very prepossessing and never would be taken for those of
runaways. Mr. Gould, in his work referred to above, says : —
"It is probable that a more minute examination of the
statistics of the army than has yet been made, would reveal
the fact that desertion is a crime of foreign rather than native
birth, and that but a small portion of the men who forsook
their colors were Americans. It is a notorious circumstance
that the great mass of the professional bounty-jumpers were
Europeans. In general, the manufacturing States, as, for
instance, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York
and New Jersey, rank high in the column of desertions; and
this result is to be attributed not only to the fact that such
States are dotted with to-wns and cities, but to the secondary
fact that these towns and cities are crowded with foreigners.''
In a table of nationalities of foreign-born United
States volunteers, Mr. Gould makes the following
classification in the States which, he says, "rank high
in the column of desertions" : —

Irish

Germans EngUsh

B.Am.

Others

New York

51,206

36,680 14,024

19,98s

12,280

Massachusetts

10,007

1,876 2,306

2,917

8,834

R. I. and Conn.

7,657

2,919 2,734

1,607

3,203

New Jersey

8,880

7,337 2,491

2,692

2,404

77,750 48,812 21,055 27,291 26,721
Of these the Irish show a large preponderance.
The great mass of deserters from the troops of the
above States, Mr. Gould says, were Europeans; so
that will leave out the British Americans. It is un
necessary to say to any one acquainted with the Ger
man character, that they rarely desert their colors;
and that the same can be said of Englishmen and
Scandinavians (the latter, doubtless largely making up
the "other foreigners"). So that there is no alterna
tive but to ascribe the honor (?) of furnishing by far

98
the largest number of deserters from the above men
tioned States, to the sons of the Emerald Isle.
Mr. Baumgarten, in his book on "German Soldiers
in the Civil War," estimates the foreign quotas as
follows : —
"Germans, with a population of 1,118,402, sent to the war
187,859 soldiers; Irish (with a much larger number to draw
from), 144,221; English, 38,250; British Americans, 53,532,
with a comparatively small number to draw from."
The following letter, from an old soldier, was
written to Mr. James H. Stark, of Boston : —
"Newburyport, Mass., Aug. 14, 1892.
"James H. Stark. — Dear Sir : I take pleasure in thank
ing you for your defence of the American element in these
United States. Your Mexican report is true, and as for the
late war of 1861-1865, I was all through it, and know that the
larger part of the Irish were bounty-jumpers, and if taken
prisoners of war would join the enemy, as my testimony that
is on file at Washington, D. C, will prove, and will tell how
the Irish priest, at the prison at Andersonville, got many hun
dreds of them out of the pen, who joined the rebels; for I
was a witness to the fact, as was many an old soldier who
survives to the present time. Your per cent, of 72 is wrong,
the true per cent, is over 90. If you want more information,
I can give it, for I was in Andersonville over six months,
during 1864, as a prisoner of war, and kept a diary of events.
"S. S-weet Gale."
In the New York Herald some time in August,
1888, apeared the following in reference to one of the
best-known "Irish patriots" — Pat Ford, proprietor of
the Irish World and also of the Freeman's Journal,
New York : —
"The name of Patrick Ford, of Boston, aged twenty-five,
occupation, printer, is found upon the muster-out roll of
Company A, Ninth Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteer In
fantry, Colonel Guiney; enlisted on the 13th day of August,
1862, and mustered into the service of the United States, Aug.
13, 1862, for three years ; deserted on the 2d day of February,
1863." Underneath, opposite the word "Remark," is written,
"D^erted at Falmouth, Va." The record of Austin Ford

99
[Pat's brother and partner], whose age is given as twenty-two
years, is in every respect similar to that of Patrick. At the
time these two men are charged with deserting the service
the enemy was strongly entrenched on the heights about Fal
mouth, Va. It is said that they went to Canada after deser
tion and remained there until about the close of the war, when
they went South and established a newspaper. An investiga
tion of the records of the War Department has shown that
the same facts are contained there."
The New York Herald adds : —
"As 'Pat' in his paper, the Irish World, is constantly
boasting about his true Americanism, this disclosure is very
interesting, and demonstrates his real value as an American
citizen." Now that record remained on the adjutant gen
eral's report at the Massachusetts State House until
very recently, when, through some powerful influence,
there was written over Pat's record, "Satisfactorily
explajined," or something of the kind; while his
brother's record remains unchanged. Pat Ford is a
big Republican politician now.
Says the San Francisco Argonaut: —
"Of the civil war we will say, that if the South had not
been encouraged by the Democratic party of the North, there
would have been no resort to arms; that, without the Irish,
there would have been no Democratic party of the North;
that, but for the embarrassment of Irish rioters in resisting
the draft, the war would have been sooner ended. While a
great many Irish and Romanists were loyal, embracing priests
and laymen, a great many more were disloyal, and by their
acts of treason embarrassed the government in its prosecution
of the war. There was not an obstructionist in Congress, nor
a disloyal legislature in any State, behind which there was not
an Irish Democratic constituency. This was true of Vallan
digham, Fernando Wood, Dan Voorhees, and all who were
conspicuous in the boldness of their endeavors to embarrass
the government. The Pope was the only potentate and Rome
the only govemment that recognized the Southern Confed
eracy. Mighty and infallible Rome was the only one among
the nations of the earth that perpetrated that crime against
liberty." Of the Irish regiments in the Union army we have

lOO
already spoken. We are sick of hearing of the "Irish
Brigade" and its deeds, for it is known that the Ameri
can regiments (which make no boasting) did twice the
effective work that was done by the Hibernians. Take
these figures, for instance, from the books of the
adjutant general of Massachusetts, beginning with the
Irish regiments: —
Ninth Regiment, three years' service, total number of en
listments, 1922 men; total number of desertions, 241.
Twenty-eighth Regiment, enlistments, 1820 ; desertions, 288.
The above are the distinctively Irish regiments of
Massachusetts. Now take some of the American regi
ments — those which had only about 5 per cent, of
Irish : —
Twenty-fifth Regiment, three years' service, enlistments,
1999 men ; desertions, 17 — of whom 9 were Irish.
Twenty-third Regiment, three years' service, enlistments,
1710; desertions, 27 — of whom g were Irish.
Twenty-seventh Regiment, three years' service, enlist
ments, 2103; desertions, 49 — of whom 17 were Irish.
Fortieth Regiment, three years' service, enlistments, 1167;
desertions, 13— of whom 5 were Irish.
And so we could go on through the whole of the
Massachusetts regiments — showing that the number of
desertions was in proportion to the number of Irish.
But this is sufficient.
The Irish orators have claimed both Gen. Sherman
and Phil Kearney as Roman Catholics. Says a letter
to the Los Angeles, Cal., Times: —
"Your correspondent, J. H. Maloney, claims by implication
that the late Gen. Phil Kearney was a Romanist. Not so;
Phil Kearney lived and died a Protestant, and his body— all
save an arm, which he left on the battle-field— lies at rest in
Trinity (Protestant Episcopal) churchyard, at the head of
Wall street. New York city. No braver man ever lived, and
no more generous soul than his ever won a nation's gratitude
and admiration. All people and all denominations who knew
of his life and death are proud to do honor to his memory.
John AEMSTRONa"

lOI
Shortly after (]len. Sherman's death the following
dispatch appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer: —
SHERMAN'S RELIGION.
(Special to the Inquirer.)
Washington, Feb. i6. — The controversy which sprung up
over the late General Sherman's religious convictions on ac
count of the zeal of bis children, while the general was in a
comatose state, in brhiging in a priest of the Roman faith to
apply the ante mortem unction, has been a topic of consider
able comment and conversation among the departed hero's
personal friends. The general never made any secret of his
notions on religion. The strong Roman practices of members
of his family caused him to be very decided in his expressions
of hostility to the Roman church, but beyond that he had no
fixed views in matters of religious convictions or denomina
tional details.
HE WAS VERY MAD.
In conversation with the correspondent of The Inquirer
when the general was at a white heat of indignation and dis
appointment over his son's going into the Society of Jesus, the
general said: —
"Oh, yes, I am disappointed. I am more than that ; I am
angry; mad, very mad all over. Mrs. Sherman and I agreed
to disagree on that question. I had no objection to the girls
being under their mother's influence, but I claimed the boys.
Their mother was very devoted to the church, and I never
interfered with her in that matter, but I believe that loyalty
belongs to the government first. I do not want to say that a
man cannot be a good American citizen and a loyal subject of
the Pope. If there ever should be an issue affecting the
safety of American institutions in conflict with the supremacy
of the Roman church, they will put the Pope above the presi
dent. We may not see it, and yet some living to-day may. I
believe that our Constitution, with the institutions which have
grown out of it, is the grandest heritage given to the human
race. It is above creeds because it owes no allegiance to any
power save God and the people. Man is instinctively a relig
ious animal, but an American does not want his religion mixed
for him or filtered through somebody else as the custodian of
his thoughts. That may do for the ignorant subjects of a
foreign state, but it will not do for free-born, intelligent, self-
confident American sovereigns — the people."
The Roman Irish also claim Gen. Judson Kilpat-

102
rick; but he was the son of a devout Baptist father and
mother; was named for the great Baptist missionary,
Adoniram Judson, and only became a Roman CathoHc
on marrying a Chilian woman several years after the
close of the war.
In a speech delivered at the reunion of the Ninth
Regiment (Irish) July 23, 1896, by one Joseph Smith,
he said: —
"I cannot forget that the stupid leaders of this cult of
Titus Oates selected the Irish Ninth as the target of their
filth. Such attacks are harmless; they serve only the useful
purpose of calling renewed attention to the services and sacri
fices of a race and regiment in the cause of liberty that some
are too anxious to forget. The red record of battle is this:
77 per cent, of the number of the Irish Ninth were Itilled and
wounded serving Old Glory."
Now compare the above with the figures in the
adjutant general's office: 1922 enlisted; 251 deserted.
So we find that 12 1-2 per cent, (very nearly) de
serted; yy per cent, were killed and wounded; there
fore only 10 1-2 per cent, returned unharmed. Too
glorious to be true !
Mr. Smith goes on, as reported in the Pilot: —
"Out of the 1922 men who gathered under its colors in its
years of service, 1304—77 per cent. — were killed and wounded
in battle; and of the gallant officers who led them, thirteen
were killed in action and four died from wounds and disease.
Seventy-seven per cent! Is that a record that skulkers and
deserters make? Do traitors perish willingly in the fiery
front of war for the land they wish to betray? No! This is a
record of heroes, an Inspiration for poet and patriot, an exam
ple and a stimulus to ages yet unborn. It was from regiments
such as this, from men who followed the flag with a laugh
into the jaws of death, into the gates of hell, that Napoleon
picked his marshals. '
The only trouble with the above is, that it is not so.
V careful examination of the record of the Ninth Regi-

I03
ment on file at the office of the adjutant general of
Massachusetts, gives these facts : —
Total number men enlisted  1922
Killed in action  153
Died of wounds or disease  105
Missing  8
Total . .  266
Or just about 14 per cent., and adding the desertions —
which were 241 — ^you would only have about 24 per
cent. But the real loss in killed and wounded and
death from disease, was less than 14 per cent., and not
yy per cent., as the above orator boastingly claims.
The Twenty-eighth Regiment (also Irish) lost in
killed, wounded, died from disease, and missing, dur
ing the war, 396 men, out of a total of 2504 enlisted —
or about 16 per cent.
Compare these losses with the losses of some of
the regiments made up nearly entirely of New England-
bom Protestant troops, and we find that the Twenty-
fifth Regiment, with 1999 men, lost in killed, died of
wounds or disease, and missing, 320 men, or nearly 17
per cent.; the Fortieth Regiment, with only 1167 men,
lost 196 — or nearly 16 per cent., and the Forty-seventh
Regiment, with 1543 men, lost 283 — or about 18 1-2
per cent.; and an average of about 17 per cent, of loss
rans all through the purely American regiments; but
they never boast of it.
But Mr. Joseph Smith, it may be said, stated that
yy per cent, were wounded in some way — perhaps not
fatally. Well, if that number were wounded in the
Ninth Regiment, and no record made at the adjutant
general's office, certainly as many were wounded in
other regiments — ^all of which show a larger proportion
of fatally wounded.

104
We take no pleasure in puncturing this Irish pre
tense, but we think it ought to be done, in the interest
of truth. As we have said before, there were many brave
Irishmen in the Union army — noble fellows in many
respects ; but these are not the windy orators who are
going about to-day proclaiming that "We Irish saved
the nation." Like other brave veterans, they are too
modest to blow, their own trumpets.
The Mexican War. — Much boasting has been
heard concerning the Irish in the war between the
United States and Mexico. There were a few brave
Irish Roman Catholics in the U. S. army at that time,
of whom Col. Riley and Gen Shields were the best. But
Irish Roman Catholics as a whole have a most unen
viable record.
An old soldier of the Mexican War — still living in
Massachusetts — informs us that the army officers did
not dare put one regiment in the field after it had
arrived in Mexico, for fear of treachery. This regi
ment was largely composed of Irishmen enlisted in
Boston and -vicinity.
We have before us as we write, a volume of 325
pages, published by A. S. Barnes & Co., New York, in
1849. The book is written by Gen. E. D. Mansfield,
of Cincinnati, who was killed in the Civil War at the
Battle of Gettysburg. On pp. 280-281 he says :—
"Desertion in the face of an enemy, and during the exis
tence of actual war, has been among all nations and in all
times punished with death. It is treason, disloyalty in its
worst, least excusable, and most dangerous form. Of this
crime were the 'companies of St. Patrick' palpably and unde
niably guilty. They fought in the ranks of the Mexican army
at the batteries of Churubusco, they fought longest and hard
est against those very colors which they had sworn to defend,
they were deserters, and many of them were taken prisoners.
Soon after the battle of the 20th, twehty-nine of these men
were tried by a general court-martial, who sentenced each one

105
of them to hang by the neck till dead. Among the three wf,n
It was found were not legally subject to the Sty of death
because they deserted previous to the' commencement of the
war, vvas the notorious Riley,* the commander of the de
serters company. His sentence was commuted, so he was
lashed and branded.
Raphael Semmes, afterwards admiral in the Con
federate service, in his book, "The Campaign of Gen.
Scott," says, in referring to these deserters : —
"Twenty-seven of these persons were captured in the
fortress of San Pablo at Churubusco, and at othe'r points.
They had been enrolled in a battalion composed of foreigners,
called the battalion of San Patricio, and had served the
enemy's artillery with great success. They fought like devils
at San Pablo, and shot down some of the officers whom they
formerly served, and whom they recognized as they advanced
at the heads of different storming parties. They were tried
to the number of fifty by court-martial, and condemned to be
hanged. General Scott commuted the sentence of nine, and
all the rest were executed. The Irish who remained faithful
to me were more rejoiced at this event than the native-born
Americans even, as they felt keenly the stigma which the con
duct of their countrymen had cast upon them."
In a book in our possession entitled "A Review of
the Mexican War," by William Jay (Boston: B. B.
Mussey & Co., 1849), we read, pp. 208-209: —
"A large number of Irish emigrants to the United States
bore arms in the invading army. These men were, of course,
mere mercenaries. They fought, as others of their country
men have labored on our canals and railroads, for money.
They knew and cared nothing about the claims of 'our much-
injured citizens,' nor did they trouble themselves about 'our
western boundary.' On reaching Mexico, they discovered that
they had been 'hired by heretics to slaughter brethren of their
own church.' The' Mexicans, moreover, published appeals
addressed directly to their consciences, in which was set
forth, in strong language, the sin they were committing in
fighting against men who had never injured them, and who
were united with them in a common faith; and libertl offers
were made of land and money, if they would abandon the
American standard. A portion of the emigrants accepted the
* This Riley was not Col. Elley, who was a brave and loyal
officer.

io6
inv tation; and it is reasonable to suppose that they were in
fluenced both by religious and by pecuniary motives. Upwards
of fifty of these men were taken prisoners in battle. They had
unquestionably committed a crime in violating their pledged
faith, and, by the ordinary rules of war, were justly liable to
punishment. A few of these men escaped death on account
of some technical objections, and a few others on account of
some unspecified mitigating circumstances ; but a geheral order
of the 22nd of September, 1847, contained the appalling an
nouncement: 'After every effort of the general-in-chief to
save, by judicious discrimination, as many of these miserable
convicts as possible, fifty of them have paid for their treachery
by an ignominious deadi upon the gallows."
A letter addressed to the San Francisco Standard
of recent date, says : —
"In a school history published in the city of Mexico in
November, 1871, by Don Manuel Payno, and adopted in the
public schools of the Fe'deral district and a number of States
of the republic of Mexico, you will find the following at page
210 and following : — [translation.]
"Referring to this heroic action ('The Battle of Churu
busco') : —
" 'General Santa Ana ordered General Manuel Rincon, in
the supreme moments of the contest in the Pedregal de
Padierna (volcanic scoria), where the bodies of the National
Guard were contending against the enemy, who was advancing
victoriously upon the capital with unfailing efforts. General
Rincon, in estimating the total lack of the elements of war
with which to defend his position, obeyed the orders given,
him and was placed on the 19th of August in Churubusco, to
the support of some light fortifications, jointly defended by
seven pieces of artillery of various calibres. The forces with
which the parapets and the convent were garisoned were 360
men of the Battalion of Independencia, 320 of those of Bravos,
200 of the pickets of Talpa, Chilpancingo, and Galeana, and a
company of Irish called San Patricio (St. Patrick), which had
passed over to the Mexican forces.'
"(On page 212 will be found what disposition the Ameri
can General Twiggs made of the prisoners taken) :—
" 'The Mexicans were conducted prisoners of war to
Tlalpam; and the unfortunate soldiers of the company of St.
Patrick were hung in San Angel, and others were marked with
a branding iron."

107
TheStandard adds : —
"There is an American record of this transaction. The
history of the war between Mexico and the United States,
written in Mexico and translated from the Spanish by Albert
C. Ramsey, colonel of the Eleventh U. S. Infantry during that
war, can be found in eve'ry well-stocked library. The inci
dents referred to may be found on pages 114 and 232-3 of that
standard work."
In a recent issue of the Omaha American we find
this letter from an old Mexican War veteran in Valen
tine, Neb.: —
"In the last issue of your paper there is an article on the
'Mexican War Deserters.' I was a private in Company G,
Fifth United States Infantry, and Riiey was a private in Com
pany K of the same regiment. We were stationed on the Rio
Grande River, in front of Matamoras, building Fort Brown.
Desertions were frequent, and Gen. Taylor had picket-guards
stationed along the river, to prevent, if possible, these deser
tions. The guards were instructed to shoot anyone attempting
to cross the river. Riley deserted and organized among the
Mexicans a company of artillery, of which he was appointed
captain. He, with his battery, was captured at Monterey, and
was allowed to march out of the city with his battery. A
'great many of the boys of the Fifth Infantry — ^your humble
servant with the rest — taunted Riley as he passed through the
streets with: 'Hello, Riley! you got away this time, but we
will get you the next time..' At the battles of Contreras and
.Churubusco, there was a regiment among the Mexicans made
up wholly of deserters from the American Army, called the San
Patricia (St. Patrick) Guards. Riley was the colonel. They
were stationed in a church at Contreras. Twiggs' division
fought that battle, and Worth's division fought Churubusco.
We captured the latter place before Twiggs did Contreras.
When these deserters were routed they had to go through the
Fifth Infantry to get to the city of Mexico, and we gobbled
the entire outfit. They gave as their reason for deserting
that they would not fight against their religion. The reason
that Riley was not shot was because he and several others
were deserters before the declaration of war, which was after
Captain Thornton's squadron of dragons was captured. I was
sentinel over Riley once while he was prisoner, and the ladies
of the city of Mexico used to come to the prison daily and
bring him clean clothing and the best of provisions that could
be had. These men were all tried by court-martial, and all who

io8
deserted before the declaration of war were sentenced to
receive fifty lashes and be confined until the termination of the
war, and then to be drummed out of the service of the United
States. The others were shot or hung when the castle of
Chaupultepec was captured. None of them were ever re
stored to duty. As our name-sake stated in his article, what
ever became of any of them after the war, I never learned. I
make this statement because I was a member of the same
regiment as Riley. From what I know of him I don't think
that he would have risen to the rank of corporal in the United
States army."
Gen. James Shields, in his report to the War De
partment, dated St. Augustin, Mexico, August 24, 1847,
incorporates the following paragraph in his account of
the battle of Contreras : —
"In this engagement my command captured 380 prisoners,
including six officers. Of this number 42 had deserted from
the American army during the war, and at their head was
found the notorious O'Reilly, who fought against our troops
at Monterey and elsewhere." [It will be noticed that Gen.
Shields calls him O'Reilly — not Riley.]
Gen. Worth also reports the taking of these
prisoners. (See reports of 30th Congress, 1847.)

Irish Oratorical Fallacies. — We have before
referred to the speech of one "Father" Dailey, reported
in the Birminham, Ala., Age-Herald, of Oct. 19, 1891.
Here are other extracts from that same speech — and
they are the common fallacies of men of Dailey's
stamp. He said: — •
"American liberty is a tree of Catholic planting. The
Empire State of our union knew not liberty till the Catholic
Dongan became its governor. Are Catholics enemies of
American liberties? Did, then, Washington, Franklin, and
Adams know their friends from their enemies? Would
Washington undertake a long journey to consult with Charles
Carroll of Carrollton, if Catholics are enemies? Would the
first Catholic bishop of these United States undergo such a
journey to Canada in the interest of the Americans if Catho-

109
lies were enemies? History declares that he would have
succeeded in winning Canada to our cause only for the
bigotry of some who petitioned England's king to persecute
the Catholic of Canada. And thus it was that Canada was
lost to these United States despite the efforts of Bishop Car
roll. Who were the friends and who the enemies then?"
There is richness ! "American liberty is a tree of
Catholic planting!" Then why do not Roman Catholic
countries know what liberty is? Where is there more
degrading bondage — omental and moral — ^than in Spain
and Portugal, in Ecuador, and Venezuela, and Peru,
and the Province of Quebec, and in the Roman Catho
lic portions of Ireland? And is not this bondage a
characteristic of Romanism wherever it reigns su
preme? Was it not true of France and Italy and
Mexico until thinking men of those countries were
brought into contact with Protestant civilization, and
were led to throw off ecclesiastical tyranny? We
repeat that saying of a noted writer : "The Almighty
has set side by side the two civilizations — Protestant
and Roman Catholic — North America and South
America — as an object lesson to the universe."
Oh, yes, we had a taste of Romanist liberty in the
early history of this country, when "her most Catholic
majesty," Isabella of Spain, was in control. If one
cares to know what it was, they have only to read
Prescott or other historians of the early Spaniards in
America. Priest Dailey says: "The Empire State of our
union knew not liberty till the Catholic Dongan became
its governor." Really! We imagine it must have
known liberty before that time of well-founded sus
picion of everything papal (1683), for we read that
the Dutch Protestants had "forced" from the Duke of
York such concessions as insured to them reli^ous
freedom. It was after this that Capt. Thomas Don-

no
gan, described as "a soldier and henchman of the
Duke," was sent over as "royal governor."
Yet not long after this, history informs us, "Os
most Catholic majesty," King James II. of England,
that bigoted papist, ascended the throne, and then, says
Elbridge S. Brooks, in his "Story of the State of New
York," "one of James' first. acts was to contemptuously
repudiate the people's charter on the ground that it
allowed too much liberty." This was a sample of the
"American liberty which is a tree of Catholic planting."
But WilHam of Oiange restored all privileges shortly
after. We are told in Grahame's History, vol. i, p. 434,
that one of the first commands of James II. to Col.
Dongan was to "suffer no printing press to exist." That
was very characteristic, was it not? Yet Dongan was
not a "good Catholic" — ^that is, a blind zealot, so Gra-
hame tells us he "beheld with alarm and resisted -with
energy the intrusion of the French priests among the
Indians," and "his bigoted master (James) commanded
him to desist from impeding the progress of the Catho
lic church" ; but after this, we learn, "Dongan warned
the Indians that the admission of the Jesuits among
them would prove fatal to their own interests."
The fact is, and every historian so informs us, all
the liberties that the early settlers of New York had,
they wrenched from their English rulers.
But Priest Dailey proceeds : "Would Washington
undertake a long journey to consult with Charles Car
roll of Carrollton, if Catholics are enemies?" As we
have said before, Charles Carroll was no more like the
Irish Roman Catholics of this day than day is like
night. But where do we find the record of his "under
taking a long journey to consult with Charles Carroll
of Carrollton?" We fail to find any mention of it in
standard works.
In regard to Bishop Carroll's mission to Canada,

Ill

the facts are these : Carroll and three others were sent
to Canada to ask the French Romanists to co-operate
with the Americans against England. As Carroll was
a Roman Catholic, it was supposed he could exert
some influence. But his mission was fruitless. The
Roman Catholics of Canada said: "The American
Declaration of Rights of 1765 appeals to the American
people for a redress of the grievance inflicted by Eng
land in establishing the papal religion in Quebec, to the
detriment of the American colonies. Then why should
we help you who thus inveigh against our holy re
ligion ?"
This was a boomerang ; but it was not sincere. The
real objection of the French Canadian hierarchy was,
that they were afraid of Protestant influence on their
people. But the Pope himself put a different interpretation
on it. In reply to a letter ,addressed by the Roman
Catholic archbishoos of Ireland to the Pope, in 1791,
asking him if their consecration oath made them dis
loyal to the British government, he replied: —
_ "It is well known that in the late war (War of the Revo
lution), which had extended to the greater part of America,
when most flourishing provinces, inhabited almost entirely by
persons separated from the Catholic church, had renounced
the government of the king of Great Britain, the province of
Canada alone, filled, as it is, almost with innumerable Catho
lics, although artfully tempted, and not yet forgetful of the
French government, remained most faithful in its allegiance
to England. "L. Cardinal Antonelli, Prefect."
Thus it is seen that Pope Pius VI. did not attribute
the unwillingness of the Canadian Roman Catholics to
help the Americans, to anything said in the Declaration
of Rights, but wholly to their loyalty to Great Britain.
And as the Pope was infallible, he was correct, of
course.

112
The Declaration of Rights was put forth by the
Stamp Act Congress in 1765, and is said to have been
written by John Cruger, delegate from New York.
Among other grievances imposed upon American colo
nists, he recounts this, that "Canada is disunited from
us by religious prejudices, that by their numbers daily
swelling by Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by
devotion to administration so friendly to their religion,
they might become formidable to us, and, on occasion,
be fit instruments in the hands of power to reduce the
ancient, free Protestant colonies, to the same state of
slavery with themselves. This was evidently the object
of the (Stamp) Act; and in this view, being extremely
dangerous to our liberty and quiet, we cannot forbear
complaining of it as hostile to British America." . . .
"Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British
Parliament should ever consent to establish in that
country a religion that has deluged your island in
blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution,
murder, and rebellion through every part of the world."
— Lossing's History of the U. S.
In an appeal "To the Several Anglo-American
Colonies," written by WilHam Livingston, afterwards
governor of New Jersey, and adopted in the Continental
Congress Oct. 21, 1774, complaint is made of the es
tablishing of the Roman Catholic religion in Quebec by
the British Parliament, instead of merely tolerating it.
The "Petition of (Tongress to the King," drawn up
by John Adams, and adopted Oct. 26, 1774, contained
a like complaint to the above.
Among other members of the first and second Con
tinental Congress v/hich adopted the above, were John
Sullivan, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat
Paine, John Jay, George Washington, Patrick Henry,
Benjamin Harrison, and Thomas Lynch.

"3
But hear Priest Dailey : —
" Was Bishop Carroll chosen as the confidential friend of Ben
jamin Franklin because either of them were enemies to American
liberties ? "
There is another fiction. Franklin was not the
" confidential friend " of Bishop Carroll.
He proceeds : —
" Was Charles Thompson, the Catholic, chosen secretary of the
first congress because he was an enemy ? "
Charles Thompson was a Protestant, educated by
the Quakers, married an aunt of William Henry Harrison,
and became the author of several Protestant theological
works. "Did the Continental Congress address the Irish nation as
friends — because Catholics were enemies ? "
Ireland, at the time of the Continental Congresses
(1774-75) was under Protestant control, with a Protestant
parliament — therefore the appeal was to Protestants, and
was not to Ireland alone, but to "Great Britain and
Ireland." "Did the Catholics of Spain send 1,000,000 francs and 1000
barrels of powder to the American army because they were enemies ? '
No : Spain sent the million livres because she had
the most bitter hatred for England, by whom she had
been humiliated to the dust. She also hoped, says
Lyman, in his "Diplomacy of the United States," to
maintain and vastly extend her territory in America,
through this million livres. " Her action," adds Lyman,
" was wholly inspired by selfishness." She had no more
love for Protestant Americans than she had for Protest
ant England; and her disgraceful conduct toward this
country in after years, as related by the American diplo
mats to Spain, Jay and Pinckney, show how despicable
was " Catholic Spain,"

114
But we have no record of the " thousand barrels of
gunpowder " referred to by Mr. Dailey. He proceeds : —
" Did the CathoUcs of Philadelphia raise the first subscription
of $100,000 to feed the starving patriots because they were enemies ? "
No : the " Catholics of Philadelphia " made no such
subscription; but the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of
Philadelphia (a Protestant society) did.
Again : —
" Did the Catholics, Pulaski, Rochambeau, and so many others,
leave their homes to fight beneath our starry banner because they
were enemies ? "
We have referred to these men elsewhere.
" Did the brave General Moylan fight side by side with Wash
ington in eveiy battle because he was an enemy ? Was his sword
any the less valued or any the less serviceable to our country because
he vras a Catholic general and his brother Catholic bishop of Cork ? "
We do not know how brave Gen. Moylan was ; but
we fail to find in any Revolutionary history any mention
of him except in the most trivial way, — simply as sug
gesting that the British could be driven from Boston, and
again as one of Washington's aids. He may have had a
brother who was Romanist bishop of Cork ; he may have
been born in Ireland ; but if he was " side by side with
Washington," he must have heard that order of his chief,
" put none but natives of America on guard " (see Sparks'
" Life of Washington "). Moylan was not a great man, —
in fact, he was a very obscure man ; and it is rather piti
able to hear him constantly held up as about the best the
Irish could do.
Priest Dailey continues : —
" Did Washington choose the Catholic name ' St. Patrick ' as
the watchword at the capture of Boston because Catholics were
enemies ? "
No : as we have said before, Washington used that

"S
password: ist, because it happened to be the 17th of
March ; 2d, out of compliment to the Irish Charitable
Society of Boston, which was a wholly Protestant society,
and which claimed that St. Patrick was a Protestant.
(See " Story of the Irish in Boston," by J. B. Cullen — a
Roman Catholic.)
" Did Arthur Dillon with his 2000 Irish and Catholic soldiers
raise the starry banner over Savannah because Catholics were ene
mies to that flag? Did a Catholic army leave the shores of sunny
France to fight side by side with Washington because Catholics
were enemies ? "
Priest Dailey forgets that Dillon and his soldiers
were simply the hired mercenaries of France— just as the
Hessians were the mercenaries of England. "They came
to this country because they were ordered to come by
their master, who was at war with England. As to
whether they were Irish and Roman Catholic or not, we
do not know — any more than does Priest Dailey.
The Dillons were whipped at the Battle of the Boyne,
and followed that cowardly wretch, James IL, to France.
We hope they fought better for this country than they
did for their own.
So much for Priest Dailey and his history.

More Papal Facts (?). — In a letter to the Iowa
Churchman, Bishop W S. Perry says : —
" His Eminence lames Cardinal Gibbons, D. D.," in a late pub
lication issued by "The Catholic Truth Society of America" — a
publishing and propagandist society of St Paul, Minn., claiming as
its mission "to make America Catholic," ventures the following
assertion in a pamphlet entitled " The Claims of the Catholic Church
in the Making of the Republic " : —
" Not only in the field and on the quarter-deck, but also in the
coundl-TOom, did Catholics have worthy and remarkable representa
tives. These put at the service of their country not only their

ii6
wisdom, but their wealth. Charies CarroU of CarroUton ; his
cousin, Daniel CarroU, a brother of Archbishop CarroU; Thomas
Fitzsimmons, a wealthy merchant of PhUadelphia, and Thomas Sim
Lee, were members of the Continental Congress and signers of the
Declaration of Independence."
The reference to any one of the countless reproductions of the
Declaration of Independence, or to the lists of "signers " in any of
the histories of the republic, vriU show the cardinal's grave blunder.
Only one Roman CathoUc, Charles CarroU of Carrollton, signed the
Declaration. The other gentlemen named, though eminent for pat
riotism, were not delegates to the Congress of 1776, but were dele
gates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and Thomas Fitz
simmons (whose life has been most cleverly sketched by an accurate
and intelligent Roman CathoUc historical writer, Martin I. J. Griffin,
of Philadelphia) signed the completed work of this convention,
though not the " Declaration." Equally inaccurate is the statement
of His Eminence that we find on the same page : —
"Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana, Illinois, fur
nished CathoUc recruits out of all proportion to their number in the
total population. The faUure of the British to raise a Catholic regi
ment during their occupation of PhUadelphia, in spite of extra
ordinary inducements, is e-vidence of the deep patriotism of the
CathoUc population in those days. Although before the war Cath
olics were debarred from holding a commission in the miUtia, yet
many speedUy rose to high positions in the Continental army, and
were among the most trusted of Washington's ^ds. The roU of
those CathoUc officers is a long and glorious one."
I simply cite a leading Roman Catholic editor and historical
writer, Martin I. J. Griffin, of Philadelphia, who says in the I. C. B. U.
Journal oi July 15, 1891 : "Anyhow, to talk about the Irish in the
Revolution and caU them Catholics, shows ignorance." The Irish
on the patriot side ia the Revolution were, with a few notable excep
tions, the Scotch-Irish ; and, as Mr. Griffin acknowledges, " they
were there just because they hated popery, and swore they would
not let George III. impose it on the British provinces by the aid of
the Catholics of Canada, for whom he had estabUshed popery in
Canada." "The Catholic Pages in American History,'' a lecture by the
Hon. J. L. Maedonald, and " The CathoUc Church and the Ameri
can RepubUc," a lecture by Wm. F. Markoe, contain equally unhis
torical statements. We note specially the claim that in the darkest
hours of the American revolution the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick—
" an Irish Catholic society," as the Hon. Mr. Maedonald asserts,—
gave to the support of the American cause " over half a mUUon of

"7
doUars." The "Friendly Sons of St. Patrick" was not a Roman
Catholic society. Of its seventeen charter members but three are
knovm to have been Roman Catholics. Of the nearly one hundred
signers to the pledge of personal and monetary support of the credit
of the United States, evidently referred to, twenty-seven were mem
bers of the Society of the Sons of St Patrick, whUe "George Meade
& Co." (Thomas Fitzsimmons being Meade's partner) were the only
Roman CathoUcs who signed it at all. The biographer of Thomas
Fitzsimmons, himself an inteUigent Roman Catholic, also denies the
further assertion of Mr. Maedonald that Thomas Fitzsimmons loaned
"twenty-five thousand dollars to aid in carrying on the glorious
war;" and the whole transaction, instead of being done "in the
dark hours and destitution of Valley Forge," — the winter of 1777-78,
as is aU^ed, was in June, 1780 1 Notably incorrect are statements
made with reference to Commodore Barry, who was not the first
commodore of the United States navy, and was not appointed by
Washington as aUeged. Mr. Griffin emphatically denies Mr. Mac-
donald's assertion that " it is a fact that one-half of the soldiers of
the Revolutionary army were of Irish birth." He adds : " We assert
again, as we have often before, that the testimony of Galloway,
which is the only documentary basis for the statement that one-hidf
of the army was Irish, shows and declares that he judged that to be
the case because one-half of the deserters from Washington's army
at VaUey Forge, when the British held PhUadelphia and he was chief
of police in Philadelphia, were Irish." Mr. Griffin, with characteristic
and most commendable honesty, adds, with reference to the British
Gen. Howe's " Roman CathoUc Regiment," that " it got one hundred
and dghtysiz recruits when the dty had to be evacuated."

Ii8

OLD COLONIAL LAWS.

Georgia. — The charter granted by George II., 1732, gave Ub
erty of conscience to all except papists.
Louisiana Laws. — In 1797, the Spanish governor of Louisiana,
de Lemos, ruled —
" That Uberty of consdence is not to extend beyond the first
generation. The children of those who enjoy it must positively be
Catholics. In the lUinois none shaU be admitted but Catholics of
the classes of farmers and artisans." — (" Laws of the U. S. — Public
Lands.") Louisiana Slaves. — Louis XV., in 1724, pubUshed an edict
confirming that of Louis XIII., expelling aU Jews from Louisiana,
and commanding that " all slaves in our province shaU be educated
in the Roman Catholic reUgion and baptized. AU colonists who
purchase slaves must have them so instructed and baptized.
" We prohibit any other reUgious rites than those of the Apos-
toUc Roman Catholic church, requiring that those who violate this
prohitntion shall be punished as rebels." — (Le Code Noir ou ReceuU
de Reglemens.) Massachusetts. — The charter of Massachusetts Bay, granted
by WUliam and Mary in 1696, gave Uberty of consdence to aU except
papists. (In 1647 Massachusetts had passed a law expelling Jesuits,
and if they retumed they were to be put to death.)
French Romanists in Massachusetts. — In 1692, laws passed
against French Roman CathoUcs settUng in Massachusetts.
New Hampshire!— The commission granted by Charles IL to
John Cutts, president of the coundl for the province of New Hamp
shire, in 1680, granted Uberty of consdence to all Protestants.
New Jersey.— In 1702, Queen Anne instructed Lord Cornbury
to grant Uberty of consdence to all except papists. (In 1698 New
Jersey had passed laws of the same tenor.)

"9
Ne-w York.— July 31, 1700, New York passed laws dedaring
that papists should be expeUed from the province, and if they
retumed they should be put to death.
"In 1700, in New York, a law was ordained for hanging every
Roman Catholic priest that came voluntarily into the province. The
passage of this law was intended to prevent the settlement of Jesuit
priests among the Indians."— ("British Dominion in America")
North Carolina. — In 1762 a law was passed declaring that
minors be not committed to the custody of papists for instruction.
South Carolina. — In 1697, Uberty of conscience and worship
was granted to aU except papists.
Pennsylvania. — In 1705, Pennsylvania granted Uberty of con
sdence to all who beUeved in the Trinity and the inspiration of the
Bible. Virginia. — In January, 1641, Virginia enacted a law dedaring
that no papists should hold pubUc office.
In 1705 a law was passed in Virginia against admitting papists
as witnesses in any case.
Freedom to aU sects dedared in 1776.
Romanists Excluded from Virginia. — The second charter
granted by James I. to the Virginia colonists prohibits the admission
of Roman Catholics to that colony.— (" Hening's Statutes.")

120

HISTORICAL FACTS.

Acadia. — Included Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and part of
Maine, colonized by De Monts, a French Huguenot, in 1604. He
gave the name " Acadia " to the territory. Champlain and Poutrin
court, the companions and successors of De Monts, were also
Protestants. American Party. — The organization of a purely native-Ameri
can party was begun in 1835. It was not pushed to any extent untU
1S44, when it elected as mayor in New York, James Harper, of the
pubUshing house of Harper Bros. The Federalists, Democrats, and
Whigs worked together in this movement. In 1844, six members cf
Congress were elected by the American party — four from New York
and two from Pennsylvania. After that its power waned until 1852,
when it revived as a secret society known as the " Knownothings."
But it did not make a ticket of its own — voting for the best men of
the Democrats or Whigs. In 1854 it polled a large vote in Massa
chusetts, Delaware, and New York as a distinct party again, and in
1S55 it elected the governors and legislatures of Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, California,
and Kentucky, and cast a very heavy vote in Maryland, Virginia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
In 1856 it nominated MUlard FUlmore for president and A. J.
Donelson for vice-president. The Whig party then met and en
dorsed the nominations and platform of the Knownothings. Then
the RepubUcan party was first organized of disaffected Democrats,
Abolitionists, and Whigs, and nominated Fremont and Dayton. The
Democrats nominated Buchanan and Breckenridge — who won the
election by electoral vote, though the popular vote for Fremont was
377,000 more than that for Buchanan. The Knownothing candidate,
Fillmore, got but eight electoral votes. In the 35th Congress (1857)

121
the Knownothings had eighteen congressmen and five senators ; in
1859 it had two senators and twenty-three congressmen — every one
from the Southern States. In i860, the war issues absorbed the
party, and its adherents went into the RepubUcan and Democratic
parties. — (Cooper's " American Politics.")
Boston, Roman Catholics in. — Almost aU the CathoUcs
heard of in the earUer days of Boston were straggling Frenchmen ;
and the first priests to venture an estabUshment here were French.
Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the actual state
of pnbUc opinion in Boston on the question of Catholics, the follow
ing declarations of the dtizens of the town should be carefuUy con
sidered. In the records of the town meeting, on Sept. 22, 1746, this
entry appears : —
Whereas it is suggested that there are several persons Roman
CathoUcks that now dweU and reside in this town and it may be very
Dangerous to permit such persons to Reside here in Case we should
be attack'd by an Enemy, Therefore Voted that Mr. Jeremiah Allen
Mr. Nathaniel Grardner and Mr. Joseph Bradford be and hereby are
appointed a Committee to take Care and prevent any Danger the
Town may be in from Roman CathoUcks residing here by making
Strict Search and enquiry after aU such and pursue such Methods
relating to them as the Law directs.
In the adjonrament of this meeting, September 25, we find the
foUowing: —
The Committee appointed the 22d instant to take Care and pre
vent any Danger the "Town may be in by Roman CathoUcks residing
here. Reported that they had found the Laws now in force relating
to such persons to be insufficient To Enable them to Effect the same
and therefore could do nothing hereon altho they_ suspected a con
siderable number of Roman CathoUcks to be now in Town,— Where
upon it was moved & Voted that the Representatives of this Town
be and hereby are desired to Endeavour at the next Session of the
General Court to get a law pass'd that shaU be effectual to Secure
the Town from any Danger they may be in, by Roman CathoUcs
DweUing here.
The foUowing extract is from the records of the town ireeting
held Nov. 20, 1772, or rather by a pamphlet published by order of
the town, containing the report of a committee of that meeting.
This committee was appointed " to state the rights of the Colonists,
and of this province in particular, as men, as Christians, and as
subjects. . . .": —
In regard to ReUgeon, mutual toUeration in the different pro
fessions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in aU ages have

ever practiced; and both by precent and example inculcated on
mankind. . . . Mr. Lock has aserted and proved . . . that such tol
eration ought to be extended to aU those whose doctrines are not
subversive of sodety. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be,
and which by aU vrise laws are exduded from such toleration are
those who teach doctrines subversive of the CivU Govemment under
which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by
reason of such doctrines as these "that Princes excommunicated
may be deposed, and those they caU Hereticks may be destroyed
without mercy ; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a
manner, in subversion of Government, by introdudng as far as pos
sible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy Ufe, Uberty
and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in iMperio, leading
directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civU discord, war and
bloodshed. — (" Story of the Irish in Boston.")
Cabot and Columbus. — "Columbus was loaded with chains
in the region which he had the glory of discovering, and died, the
victim of ingratitude and disappointment, among the people whom
he had conducted to wealth and renown. Cabot, after being commis
sioned by Henry VII. of England, and discovering the continent of
North America, spent some years in the service of Spain, to experi
ence her ingratitude as did Columbus. He retumed in his old age
to England, and obtained a kind and honorable reception from the
nation which had as yet derived only barren hopes and a seemingly
relinquished titie from his expedition. He received the dignity of
knighthood, the appointment of Grand Pilot of England, and a pen
sion that enabled him to spend his decUning years in honor and
comfort" — (Grahame's History, vol. i., p. 28.)
Carroll, Bishop, and Washington. — " The late encyclical of
the Roman pontiff to the archbishops and bishops of the ' ItaUan
Mission ' in the United States, speaks of ' the weU-known friendship
and familiar intercourse which subsisted between the first Roman
bishop of Baltimore, the Rt. Rev. Dr. John CarroU, and Washmg-
ton.' In the interest of historical accuracy it may be weU to state
thatit is yet to be shown that these two men ever met or corre
sponded, or, in fact, ever had any intercourse, familiar or otherwise,
whatever. In this statement, infallibiUty has erred ; and it is indica
tive of a growing spirit of independence, even among Roman Catho
Uc writers and students in our own land, that attention to this mis
statement was first of aU called by a weU-known historical scholar in
the columns of a Roman CathoUc newspaper (Griffin's Journal,
PhUadelphia), and the blunder of his holiness pointed out in the
interest of historical truth.
" In this connection we note the oft-repeated claims made on

123
the part of Roman Catholic prelates and writers as to the part borne
by the Roman church and its adherents in the making of our repub
Uc. These statements, exaggerated at each repetition, are, in the
majority of cases, as baseless as the Pope's assertion of ' the well-
kno-wn friendship and famiUar intercourse ' existing between Wash
ington and Bishop CarroU."— (" The Churchman.")
Charitable Irish Society. — The Charitable Irish Sodety of
Boston, founded about 1735, selected St Patrick's Day as the time
of starting their work. They barred all Roman Catholics from
offices of honor or trust. Article 8 of their by-laws read as follows : —
VIII. The managers of this sodety shall be a President, a
Vice-President, a Treasurer, three Assistants, and three Key-keepers,
with a Servitor to attend the sodety's service, the managers to be
natives of Ireland, or natives of any other part of the British
Doimnions of Irish extraction, being Protestants and inhabitants of
Boston. In 1804 the reUgious Umitation was abandoned. — (CuUen's
'Story of the Irish in Boston.")
That the Charitable Irish Sodety of Boston was Protestant, is
proved by extracts from the Boston Post Boy and Advertiser of
March 23, 1763, giving an account of its celebration of the week
before, some of the toasts being —
" The King : may his reign be long and happy."
" The Queen and Royal FamUy."
" The Sons of St. Patrick, wheresoever dispersed."
" The immortal memory of the glorious King WiUiam."
"The Revolution in 1688."
" The first of July, 1691."
"The first of August, I7i4."
" The surteenth of April, 1746."
" May we never want a WUUamite to kick a Jacobite."
"The memory of our brave countrymen who gallantly defended
Derry against King James, preferring the worst of deaths (famine)
to a Popish Stuart, brass money, and wooden shoes."
"The seventeenth of December, 17 S3-"
Christ a Frenchman.—" In the year 1696 an Indian chief in
formed a Christian minister of Boston that the French, whUe
instructmg the Indians in the Christian religion, told them that the
Saviour was of the French nation; that the EnglUh had murdered
him ; and that, whereas, he rose from the dead and went up to the
heavens, aU that would recommend themselves unto his favor must

124
revenge his quarrel upon the EngUsh, as far as they can." — (Cotton
Mather's " Ecdesiastical History of New England.")
Declaration of Independence — Religious Fah-h of the
Signers. — The religious faith of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence was as foUows : —
Protestant Episcopalians — Gerry, Livingstone, Morris (Lewis),
Hopkinson, Morris (Robert), Rush, Lewis, Franklin, Morton, Cly
mer, Taylor, WUson, Ross, Rodney, Read, Chase, Paca, Stone,
Wythe, Lee, Jefferson, Harrison, Nelson, Lee (F. L.), Braxton,
Hooper, Hewes, Penn, Rutledge, Heyward, Lynch, Middleton, Gwin
nett, Walton. Presbyterian — Floyd, Witherspoon, Clark, Smith,
McKean. Quaker — Hopkins, Stockton. Baptist — Hart. Roman
Catholic — CarroU. Congregationalists — Thornton, Whipple, Bart
lett Hancock, Adams (Samuel), Adams (John), Paine, Sherman,
Wolcott Huntington, WUUams, EUery, HaU.— (Bishop W. S. Perry.)
Delaware. — This province was settled by Swedes — the settie-
ment having been projected by Gustavus Adolphus, the great Pro
testant leader, and carried into effect, through Count Oxrenstiema,
by his daughter, Christina.
Foreign Officers in the Revolution. — George Washington
was greatly annoyed by the large number of European adventurers
— chiefly French — who sought commissions in the American army.
July 24, 1778, he wrote to Gouverneur Morris: "I do most devoutly
wish that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the Mar
quis de Lafayette." To John Adams, John Quiney Adams, Richard
H. Lee, and others, Washington wrote even more emphaticaUy.
France Rewarded. — France received certain pledges from
the United States m 1778 and 1788, in the form of a guarantee of
perpetual possession of her West Indian colonies, as pay for her
assistance to this country in the Revolution. In 1793 France helped
herseU to American ships about as the Alabama did in the late war.
When the United States protested, France reminded her of the un-
fulfiUed pledges of 1778 and 1788, and this country was compeUed to
yield to France fifteen mUUon doUars' worth of property. This was
known as the " French Spoliation."
General Commanders in U. S. Army. — Of the general-com
manders since 1775, five have been of EngUsh descent (Washington,
Harmer, Wilkinson, Dearborn, and Brown); six have been of
Scotch descent (Knox, St Cldr, Macomb, Scott, McClellan, and
Grant) ; two Irish (Sherman and Sheridan) ; and two German (Hal-

I2S
leek and Schofield). But one of these (Sheridan) was a Roman
CathoUc. Generals in the Revolution. — Of the twenty-nine best-
known American generals in the Revolutionary War, ten were of
EngUsh descent, viz., Washington, Greene, Israel Putnam, Gates,
Reed, Lee, Lincoln, Sumter, Pinckney, and Pickens; seven were
Scotch — Mercer, Armstrong, Lord Sterling, St Clair, McDougall,
Mcintosh, and Moultrie ; four were known as Scotch-Irish — Knox,
Irvine, Wayne, and Stark (the grandfathers of the two latter fighting
under WUUam at the battie of the Boyne) ; four were of Irish de
scent — SuUivan, Montgomery, George Clinton, and Moylan; Cad-
walader was Welsh, Marion was Huguenot, Schuyler was Dutch.
We are uncertain about the nationality of Mifflin. "The grandfather
of Montgomery also served under WiUiam at the battle of the
Boyne. Of aU the above generals, Moylan alone was Roman
CathoUc Huguenots, Massacre of. — In 1565 St Augustine, Florida,
was founded by a settlement of Spaniards. Pedro Melendez de
AvUes, after laying the foundations of the dty, attacked and de
stroyed abont nine hundred French Protestants who had established
a colony on the St. John's river. The prisoners taken by Melendez
were hung upon trees, with placards, each bearing an inscription, the
meaning of which was : " These wretches have been executed, not as
Frenchmen, but as Lutherans or heretics." About two years after
wards, DeGourgues, a French officer, with a considerable force under
his command, captured two Spanish forts in Florida, and hung the
prisoners on trees, on the trunks of which he caused to be carved
words which said that the prisoners were " hung, not as Spaniards,
but as assassins or murderers."
Indians and French. — Referring to the bloody massacres of
the New England settlers, espedaUy those of Massachusetts (1693-5),
by flie Indians, "Grahame's History" says (vol. i., p. 281): "The
French priests who ministered amongst the Indians were Jesuits ;
and their maxim, that it was unnecessary to keep faith vrith heretics,
proved but too congenial to the savage ethics of their pupils."
AU other historians, and even the poet Whittier, tell us of the
murderous instigations of Rasle, the Jesuit priest, who was largely
responsible for the deeds of the Indians in what is now the State of
Mame. James the Second and New York.—" In 1685, the Duke of
York ascended the throne as James the Second. As king, he re-

126
fused to permit the privileges which, as duke, he had granted ; and
having determined to introduce the Roman Catholic reUgion into
the province as the estabUshed church, he commenced by efforts to
enslave the people. A direct tax was ordered ; the printing-press —
the right arm of knowledge and freedom — was forbidden a place in
the colony, and the provindal offices were fiUed by Roman Catho
Ucs." — (Lossing's History, p. 147.)
Jesuits and Indians. — The Jesuits excited the Indians to
massacre the colonists of Massachusetts and adjoining provinces.
The massacres of Pemaquid, Casco, Schenectady, Salmon Falls, and
other places, were instigated by these Jesuits. Says Lossing's "His
tory of the United States," p. 131 : —
"The natural ferodty of the Indians was quickened by the
teachings of the Jesuits concerning the proper fate of heretics.
" In these massacres, instigated by the Jesuits, we may find a
reason for the seeming intolerance of the Protestant majority in
Maryland, the disabUities of the Roman CathoUcs in Virginia, New
York, and New England, and their exclusion from the privUeges of
freemen in tolerant Rhode Island. The most potent operations of
the Jesuits were in secret, and the colonists were compeUed to
regard every Roman CathoUc as the natural enemy of Protestants,
and as laboring to destroy every measure tending to human free
dom." Jesuits and Indians. — Parkman says : " It was the reproach
of the Jesuit missions that they left the savage a savage stUl, and
asked little of him but the practice of certain rites and the passive
acceptance of dogmas to him incomprehensible."
The same authority pronounces " the results of the Jesuit mis
sion in the west " as but " meagre and transient."
Knox, Gen. Henry. — "We find young Henry Knox, the
fnture artiUerist of the American army, in an anti-popery procession,
one ' Pope's Night' in Boston, and when a wagon broke a wheel, he
supported it with his own tough-stringed muscles, lest the pageant
should be ecUpsed by that of a rival organization. His famUy was
from near Belfast, Ireland." — (CuUen's "Story of the Irish in
Boston.") Knownothings, The.—" It wUl not do to say that the ' riotous
burnings and murders of the Knownothing period ' were due to the
violence of Protestant denunciations. They were due to what lay
behind the denunciations — the intrusions and interferences of Rome
in pubUc and civU affairs. It is very easy for Ahab to say to EUjah,

127
'Art thou he that troubleth Israel ? ' but the truth is that Rome was
the troubler then, and wUl be now, unless all temptation to this kind
of thing is positively removed."— (Bishop Doane, of Albany.)
Maryland Toleration.—" Religious toleration was the pride
and glory of the early legislature of Maryland ; yet it was not the
first instance in America, as is often alleged, when reUgious tolera
tion received the sanction of law. Rhode Island has that honor 
. . . giving broader toleration than the Maryland act contemplated,
for it did not restrict men to a belief in Jesus Christ" — (Lossing's
History, p. 151.)
Naturalization. — In i8oi, the present requirement that for-
dgn-bom men should Uve in the United States five years before
bemg made citizens, was passed. Prior to that, from 1790 to 1795, *
two-years' residence only was required ; from 1795 to 1798, five years'
residence, with a dedaration of intention three years before admis-
^on to dtizenship ; from 1798 to 1801, a fourteen yeais' residence
was required. One of the prindples of the American party was to
restore this latter requirement.
O'Reilly, Treacherous. — For an account of the treacherous
conduct of Gen. O'ReiUy, a vassal of the king of France, toward the
people of New Orleans in 1769, see Bancroft's History, vol. iv., pp.
164-166. Presidents, Nationality of. — Of the 23 men who have
served .as presidents of the United States, 15 were of EngUsh
descent; four Scotch-Irish (Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, and Arthur);
two Scotch (Monroe and Grant) ; one Welsh (Jefierson) ; and one
Dutch (Van Buren).
"Put None but Americans on Guard." — This phrase, at
tributed to Washington, is hardly correct, but probably arose from
orders which he gave, as foUows : —
Given at headquarters at Cambridge, this loth July, 1775.
Horatio Gates, Adj.-Gen.
" Parole — Dorchester ; Countersign — Exeter.
" The General has great reason and is displeased with the negU-
gence and inattention of those officers who have placed as sentries
at the outposts, men with whose characters they are unacquainted.
He, therefore, orders that for the future no man shall be appointed
to those stations who is not a native of this country ; this order is to
be considered a standing one, and the officers are to pay obedience
to it at their peril. Fox, Adjt.-Gen. of the Day.
March 17, 1778, orders were Issued for one hundred men to be

128
annexed to the guard of the commander-in-chief — " these men to be
American bom."
In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, in 1777,
this passage occurs : —
" You wUl therefore send me none but natives, and men of some
property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice
you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not
want to create any invidious distinction between them and foreign
ers."— (Cluskey's "American Text-Book.")
Queen Isabella's Character. — In its review of Justin Win
sor's " Christopher Columbus," in November, 1891, the N. Y. Sun
said: —
" If Columbus figures among the heroes of Prescott and Irving,
Isabella of Castile is their chief heroine. She also has fared but ul
under the cold and searching Ught of modern criticism. Beneath
her cultivated sweetness of manners and an air of outward benignity
that comported well with auburn tresses and blue eyes, historical re
search has detected an amount of perfidy and deceit which not even
the habits of her time could palliate. Indeed, Mr. Winsor finds
himself, as a student, forced to acknowledge that in these respects
Queen Isabella, whose 'splendid soul ' we used to hear extolled, was
more culpable even than her husband, the notoriously frigid and
remorsdess Ferdinand Aragon."
Mr. Winsor himself says of IsabeUa : —
"The documentary researches of Bergenroth have decidedly
lowered her in the judgment of those who have studied that investi
gator's results. . . . 'Perhaps,' says Helps, 'there is hardly any
great personage whose name and authority are found in connection
with so much that is strikingly e-vU.' "
Another review of the same book, in the Tribune, said : —
"The researches of Bergenroth in the archives of Salamanca
have refuted aU the traditional legends. The saintly queen, cele
brated by Prescott and Irving, is transformed into a cruel mother, a
hated wife, the oppressor of the hapless Jews, the author of the
Inquisition. No pity had she for the countless Hebrew women and
children she drove from her realm ; she even robbed them in their
flight of their jewels and their gold."
Ferdinand of Spain.— Referring to Queen Isabella's husband,
Justin Winsor says : —
" He was enterprising in his actions, as the Moors and heretics
found out [to their sorrow]. He did not extort money ; he only ex
torted agonized confessions [through the Inquisition]. He said
masses, and prayed equally weU for God's benediction on evU as on
good things. He made promises, and then got the papal dispensa-

129
tion to break tiiem. He juggled in state policy as his mind changed,
and he worked his craft very readUy."
The New York Sun's review says : 
"The king, wortiiy of his wife, left his daughter Katherine to
suffer from want m England; he was cold, cruel, immoral; a faith
less husband, a treacherous ally, a dangerous friend. Among his
contemporaries, Columbus the sea robber seems almost humane."
Revolution, Romanists in the.— In Sadlier's History of the
United States, the text-book used in the parochial schools, we read :
"The independence of the United States was, m a great degree,
secured by Roman CathoUc blood, talent and treasure."
Historian Bancroft says : " The thirteen colonies were all Pro
testant ; even in Maryland the Roman Catholics formed scarcely an
eighth, perhaps not more than a twelfth part of the population;
their presence in other provinces, except Pennsylvania, was hardly
perceptible." . . . "America was most thoroughly a Protestant
country. The whole number of Roman CathoUcs within the thirteen
States, as represented by themselves, in the year 1784, was 32,500."
Cardinal Manning's organ, the London Tablet, in it sissue of Jan.
3, 1885, says : " Indeed, in 1783 it was reckoned that outside those
two States (Maryland and Pennsylvania), aU the Catholics of the
repubUc only numbered about 1500."
The Boston Pilot of November 29, 1884, reports a speech deliv
ered by Judge Merrick before the Baltimore plenary councU. In that
speech the judge said: "At that time (November, 1774) the Catho
lics numbered about sixteen thousand in Maryland, about seven
thousand in Pennsylvania, and a few other thousands in other
States, not counting the Canadian French and their descendants in
the territory to the westward of the Ohio and on the banks of the
Mississippi." Cardinal James Gibbons, the archbishop of Baltimore, in an ad
dress deUvered March 24, 1887, in Rome, on the occasion of his ele
vation to the purple, affirmed : " Our CathoUc community in those
days (1784), numbered only a few thousand souls, scattered through
the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and were
served by the merest handfnl of priests."
Take away from Cardinal Gibbons' " few thousands " the women
and chUdren, and wiU there be left as many f uU-bodied men as in
andent days blew the trumpets, broke the pitchers, and cried : " The
sword of the Lord and of Gideon ! " This is the extent to which the
independence of what Bancroft designates " most thoroughly a Pro
testant country" was secured by "Roman CathoUc blood, talent
and treasure." — (Rev. John Lee, A. M.)

I30
Scotch-Irish. — " We shall find that the first voice publicly
raised in America to dissolve all connection with Great Britain came,
not from the Puritans of New England, nor the Dutch of New York,
nor the planters of Virginia, but from the Scotch Irish Presbyte
rians." — (Bancroft.)
Signature of Charles Carroll. — Lossing's " History of
the United States " (p. 603) says : " It has become a record of his
tory that Mr. Carroll, after signing his name, was told that the
British govemment would not be able to identify him as the arch-
traitor, because there were other Charles CarroUs in Maryland, and
that he affixed ' of Carrollton ' to his name, vrith the remark, ' Now
they can't make a mistake.' " This is not true, for it was his
common way of signing his name. In a letter before the writer, sent
to Gen. Schuyler from Canada, by a committee of which Mr. Carroll
was one, and which was written some time before the resolution con
cerning independence was introduced into Congress, his name has
the suffix " of Carrollton."
Slavery, Rome and. — "It is a trifle late in the order of logic,
and also in the order of time, for the Pope to put himself at the head
of the anti-slavery movement. It is also a trifle curious that he
should send an envoy to England to arouse that foremost of aU
anti-slavery nations to a sense of th« wickedness of the slave trade
in Central Africa, and of the duty of Christian nations to suppress it.
England has spent and sacrificed hundreds of thousands of pounds
sterling to extirpate slavery and suppress the slave trade, while the
popes have spent never a maravedi for that purpose. The voice of
English Christians, echoed, at no smaU cost to themselves, by the
voice of Americans, has aroused the conscience of ci-viUzed mankind
to recognize the cruelty and moral obloquy of slavery, whUe the
popes have never moved their Ups upon the subject. Italy (on whom
the Pope frowns) and Germany are pushing schemes of colonization
in which slavery can have no place. In short, the anti-slavery battie
has been won at an incalculable cost of blood and treasure, of which
Rome has spent not one drop nor one com."— (« The Churchman.")
"Before the nineteenth century, slavery was treated by the
leadmg papal authorities as an institution that, considered in itself,
had no taint of sin. The ownership of slaves was regarded as not
more immoral than the ownership of horses. By such eminent doc
tors as Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Buenaventura, it was com
mended to the slaves as a source of righteous humUity, and of other
pious sentiments. A papal buU authorized the Portuguese to
enslave the negroes of Africa, and to transport them to other coun-

131
tries for the purpose of holding them in hereditary bondage ; the
slave-trade between Africa and America was maintained throughout
the sixteenth, seventeenth, and dghteenth centuries by Catholics,
and even the priests held great numbers of slaves ; and papal buUs
commanded that aU Florentines, all Venetians, aU Protestant Eng-
Ushmen, aU Lutherans, and other enemies of the papacy, or of the
pontifical state, should be reduced to hereditary slavery." — (HitteU's
"Spirit of the Papacy.")
Sullivans, The. — The father of Gen. John SuUivan, the Revo
lutionary hero, and Gov. James SuUivan, was Owen Sullivan. Owen
SulUvan of Berwick was born in Limerick in 1691. He was the
original ancestor of the name in this country. He and his wife
Margery were members of the Congregational Church in Biddeford.
Their names were on the church books as such. The old place of
burial of the father and mother was on the old farm, untU they were
removed to Durham, N. H., where their son. General John, and
daughter Margery, are buried. — (Boston Transcript, Dec. 8, 1894)
United States Constitution. — Great Britain has no written
Constitution, but her unwritten Constitution is based largely upon
certain rights expressed in Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights,
the Habeas Corpus Act, and the BiU of Rights. The Constitution
of the United States is written, and is foimded upon the British
Constitution. Voters, Quahfications of. — A foreigner becomes a dtizen
of the United States after having resided here five years, and having
taken ont naturalization papers ; but in many States he may be a
voter without tieing a citizen of the country. In Massachusetts,
Califomia, Connecticut, Georgia, HUnois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Caro-
Una, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, a voter must be an actual
dtizen (five years' residence) of the United States, and from three
months' to one year's residence in the State in which he votes is
also required. In some States it is only necessary for an sdien to
dedare his intention of becoming a citizen, and Uve in the State a
few months, and he becomes a voter. In Minnesota an immigrant
can vote four months after he lands; in Michigan, three months,
and in Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon,
SB months; whUe in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana,
Missouri, Texas, and Wisconsin, one year's residence in the State
(and the United States) is all that is necessary to become a voter;
and in Kentucky, two years.

132
Washington, Attempt to Poison. — " Washington's life
guards were tampered with. One of them, an Irishman named
Hickey, was entrusted vrith the task of destroying Washington. He
resolved to poison his commander, and tried to make the general's
housekeeper, a faithful maiden, an accompUce in the deed. She
pretended to favor his plans. It was arranged for her to put poison,
that he should prepare, into green peas, a dish of which Washington
was very fond. At the appointed time he saw the poison mixed
with the peas, and watched the girl at the open door as she carried
the fatal mess to the general's table and placed it before him. The
maiden had revealed the plot to Washington, and he made an
excuse for sending the peas away. He ordered the arrest of Hickey,
who was tried by a court-martial and condemned. He was hanged
in Colonel Rutger's field, a little east of the Bowery, on the 28th of
June, 1776, in the presence of twenty thousand people." — (Lossing's
History.) Wesley in Georgia. — "John Wesley so urgently pressed
reUgion upon the people of Georgia, that at last aU persons of any
consideration came to look upon him as a Roman Catholic" —
(" Georgia Historical Collections.")
Winthrop, Governor, and Popery. — " It is curious to note
that Gov. Winthrop anticipates the claim of priority of the Roman
church for discovery here and seeks to predude it. In his journal
on the last days of October, 1632, Winthrop gives an account of his
retum from a visit which he and others had been making through
the woods to Plymouth. On their way to Wessagusset, now P^-
mouth, he writes : —
" ' When they came to the great river [Neponset] they were car
ried over by one Luddam, their guide (as they had been when they
came, the stream being very strong and up to the crotch), so the
governor called that passage Luddam's Ford. Thence they came to
a place called Hue's Cross. The governor being displeased at the
name, in respect that such things might hereafter give the papists
occasion to say that their religion was first planted in these parts,
changed the name and called it Hue's FoUy.' "—(Boston Transcript)
Witchcraft.—" Punishment of witchcraft was first sanctioned
by the Church of Rome a little more than three hundred years ago.
Certain tests were instituted, and thousands of innocent persons
were burned aUve, drowned, or hanged, in Europe. Within three
months, in 151 5, five hundred persons were bumed in Geneva, Swit
zerland. In the diocese of Como, one thousand were bumed in one
year."— (Lossing's " History of the United States," p. 132.)

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 002550i»R?h

?*«'"'

I'.'^^ia

t'i: *'^'

vpwi^'m^m

^h;.

ij^'j