Download Catholics in American Politics Online Exhibit

Lesieur 1
Zachary Lesieur
Dr. Strauss
HIST 385
18 November 2013
Catholics and the Issue of Church and State
Catholics have held a heavy influence upon the politics in America since the founding of
the nation in the late 1700s. The influence of the Church over the State or the State over the
Church has changed over time, as the interpretation of the meaning of religious freedom and
separation of Church and State has evolved. The influence of the Church may not have decreased
significantly, but the way the influence has been expressed towards the State has changed. The
influence of Catholics and the different ideas of Church and State will be explored. To do this,
three specific publications that were either written in the 18th century or published in the 19th
century will be analyzed. These three documents are the Journal of Charles Carroll of
Charleston: During his visit to Canada in 1776, as One of the Commissioners of Congress,
“Address to the Catholic Voters of Baltimore,” and “Church and State: A Lecture Delivered
before the Catholic Institute of Baltimore.” The first document is constituted of the Charles
Carroll’s journal during his trip to Canada in 1776 and an introduction written for the journal’s
publication in 1845 by the Maryland Historical Society. The second article was written in 1828
to warn voters about the deceptiveness of John Quincy Adams who was trying to attain Catholic
votes around this time. The third article explores the Catholic view of the separation of Church
and State in the 19th century, as argued by Fr. John McCaffrey, the President of Mount St.
Mary’s University, in 1854. All three of these articles outline the role of Catholicism in politics;
the difference between these opinions will be shown throughout this article. Furthermore, the
Charles Carroll Journal will be used as a primary source for both the 1770s during the
Revolutionary War and 1840s when it was published and given an introduction. The other two
articles are declarations of opinions by concerned citizens in the “Address to the Catholic Voters
of Baltimore” and a concerned priest and president of Mount St. Mary’s College in the speech
“Church and State: A Lecture Delivered before the Catholic Institute of Baltimore.”
Charles Carroll’s mission to Canada revealed the influence and political thought of
Catholics in America at the time of the Revolutionary War. In The Life and Times of John
Carroll the author, Peter Guilday, writes, “. . . in company with Franklin and Chase, Charles
Carroll of Carrollton and Father John Carroll, the foremost Catholic of the rebelling colonies to
interview the leaders of Church and State on the banks of the St. Lawrence.”1 The United States,
a land of liberty and religious freedom, was sending Catholic Church leaders on a political trip to
a country that was heavily Catholic. At the time of this trip, Canada had approximately 150,000
Catholics and only about 360 Anglicans.2 Canada’s politics were also heavily influenced by
Catholicism because Canada had one Church leader and that leader was Catholic Bishop Jean
Briand who held a heavy influence in politics. Guilday writes that Bishop Briand saved Canada
from Britain through his acts of loyalty towards Britain.3 As a result, Canada was saved by the
efforts of a Catholic bishop and bringing the loyalty of the Catholic citizens of Quebec under his
control. Therefore, the United States had to influence a Catholic bishop to side with the sense of
freedom from Britain. In order to do this, the United States knew that they had to send Catholic
Peter Guilday, “John Carroll’s Mission to Canada,” in The Life and Times of John Carroll (New York:
Encyclopedia Press, 1922), 93.
2
Ibid.. 97.
3
Ibid., 93.
1
Lesieur 2
figures to Canada to show the Catholic atmosphere influenced in American politics. Guilday
argues that Charles Carroll was to be the liaison to the leaders of the American party in Canada,
and Father John Carroll was to be the liaison to Bishop Briand to express the religious tolerance
that was felt in America.4 The United States combined religion and government in its political
negotiations through the use of Church figures and its idea of religious freedom. Religious
freedom was shown by the allowance of religious ideas in politics. This idea of religion in
politics was what was going to be discussed in the 19th century, as a need was going to be seen
for defining the separation of Church and State.
In “The Church and the American Revolution: Historiographical Pitfalls, Problems, and
Progress,” Mark Noll explores the role of religion and churches during the 1700s to inspire the
Revolution. He argues in the article, “. . . while operating as if the actions, intrigues, and rights of
men were sole realities, many clergymen continued to proclaim from the pulpit that God did
control the affairs of the world.”5 Noll is arguing that the clergy advocated the liberty and
freedom of humanity, but by doing so they were violating complete separation from Church and
State. From this example, faiths, other than Catholicism, were advocating for the cause of
American Independence. In the 1700s when American freedom was at stake, the people held a
very lax view of the relationship between religion and politics; the Church was used to advocate
the cause of the State. This helps to explain the problem with Charles Carroll being used as a
religious figure by the State to help convert Canada to the American side. The State would not
have a problem using religion as a means of diplomacy because religion was already a heavy
influence of the State. There was not a strong separation of Church and State.
In 1845 the Maryland Historical Society published Charles Carroll’s journal about his trip
to Canada. This publication reveals the political thoughts that were being discussed at this time.
Before considering the implications behind publishing Charles Carroll’s journal in 1845, this
article will focus upon the opposing ideas of Church and State felt in the 1820s. These opposing
ideas rest heavily upon the political ideas of one Catholic bishop in particular, whose name was
John England. The influence of Bishop John England, who lived from 1786-1842, began in the
early 1800s after his arrival in America in 1820s.6 In the article “The Fundamental Church-State
Tradition of the Catholic Church in the United States,” the author, Elwyn Smith, reveals the
views felt by John England in the first half of the 19th century. Smith writes, “Nothing said by
any Catholic authority on ‘civil or political regulations’ has the slightest binding force for
Catholics, added England.”7 England is arguing that the Church should not influence the State or
even the voting minds of the people of the United States. This view point would seem to contrast
strongly against an article written in 1828 warning Catholic voters against the lies of John
Quincy Adams, but the article is holding England’s views about Church and State in mind.
In “An Address to the Catholic Voters of Baltimore,” written by concerned Catholics as a
political pamphlet to attempt to influence Catholic voters, the authors outlined reasons for
Catholics to not vote for John Quincy Adams. The authors acknowledged the personal opinions
shown by Adams in his politics, but they felt that Adams has crossed a line to which he was
4
Ibid., 98.
Mark A. Noll, “The Church and the American Revolution: Historiographical Pitfalls, Problems, and Progress,”
Fides et Historia 8, no. 1 (1975): 10, http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=d368d3d20ae2-4484-b791-189889b91661%40sessionmgr115&hid=106.
6
Elwyn A. Smith. “The Fundamental Church-State Tradition of the Catholic Church in the United States,”
Church History 38, no. 4 (1969): 489, http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=98ae3d561220-459f-b054-2b7e67399e59%40sessionmgr11&hid=104.
7
Ibid., 491.
5
Lesieur 3
accountable. In the eyes of the writers, Adams provoked their claims of accountability. The
authors make this idea clear when they wrote to their fellow Catholics declaring, “But when a
desperate party rely on him to conciliate, by his personal influence, the suffrage of his brothers in
the faith, we have a right, as Catholics, to shew [sic] to Catholics, who is the man whom they are
courted to sustain . . . .”8 The authors believed that they had been attacked personally, and so
they had the responsibility to outline the reasons why Adams is offensive to their religion. The
problems with Adams are then detailed as statements upon which he made fun of Catholic
teachings and traditions, such as sainthood and cloistered nuns.9 The authors wanted to make
sure that Adams is shown as an enemy to Catholicism. Adams was not to be elected because of
his anti-Catholic tendencies.
Although the authors were concerned about the impending election of Adams, whom
they see as an anti-Catholic, the authors were still worried about the idea of separation of Church
and State. At the end of the article, the authors argued, “We have conducted it [the political
appeal], however, with the utmost regard to his private delicacy. For what, though painful to us,
was unavoidable, the blame must rest on those who began the contest.”10 The authors were
worried about the violation of religious freedom and religious influence in politics. They only
wanted to influence political feeling, if they felt that their religion was going to be in danger. If
they had believed that there was no danger to their religion, then they may have been less
inclined to argue against the election of John Quincy Adams. Religion in politics was seen as a
serious issue, and the authors of the article against Adams felt that they had to strongly defend
their case for writing about religion and politics. Another statement they made defending their
right to argue against Adams through appeals to Adams summarizes their feelings. Near the end
of the article, the authors argue, “We reiterate our solemn reprobation of this blending of religion
with our political discussions. We claim an exemption from such unhallowed appeals, as a fair
corollary from our constitutional liberty of conscience, to men of every persuasion.”11 The
argument for liberty of conscience is the main reason for the authors’ belief that they had not
violated any form of religious influence in politics. In this context, religion was superior to State,
violation of the separation of Church and State could be justified. If the State had attacked
religious beliefs in some form, then the abused religion could respond in order to defend the
beliefs it promulgated. In this way, Church and State were not fully separated by the public in the
1820s. The people still had the ability to advocate for or against a certain person based on their
religious background. This is an example that Church and State were not separated, since the
individual people of different religions could not get along. Therefore, a person felt obligated to
attack or defend oneself in the public realm, even if it meant the political realm.
Although, the separation of Church and State may have not been fully practiced in the
1820s, it was still taken as a serious consideration. The “Address to the Catholic Voters of
Baltimore” followed the views advocated by John England in relation to Church and State. John
England did believe in the idea that the Church has no power over the temporal governments of
the world, but this does not mean that the Church can allow itself to be ruled by a temporal
government.12 Writing about John England, Elwyn Smith states, “A fortiori, the church lies
8
William Jenkins, Edward I. Wilson, Matthew Bennett, William George Read, Philip Laurenson, T. Parkin Scott,
and John Creagh. “Address to the Catholic Voters of Baltimore” (Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver, 1828), Vol.. 169,
no.11, Emmittsburg, Mount St. Mary’s College, 4.
9
Ibid., 6.
10
Ibid., 15.
11
Ibid., 13.
12
Smith, “Church-State Tradition,” 491.
Lesieur 4
beyond the reach of civil authority. Spiritual embraces ecclesiastical, but ecclesiastical is wholly
distinct from the temporal.”13 The Church is wholly separate from any means of temporal
government; it cannot influence or be influenced by the temporal governments of the world. The
Church is a human body based upon the spiritual realm, and so it should not regulate bodies that
are wholly temporal. In this context, the authors of the “Address to the Catholic Voters of
Baltimore” were truthfully concerned about the impact of their article upon the political ideas of
their time. By their appeal to conscience, the authors of the article were defending their write to
defend their beliefs. They likewise believed that they had been antagonized to defend their
beliefs, since Adams had seemed to violate their religious freedom by writing against their faith.
Adams was a political figure, and so his writings may have seemed to be a violation of
separation of Church and State. Even though John England had been against any influences
between Church and State, the authors felt they had reason to defend their faith.
Catholics in the 1820s felt a need to defend their faith because there were anti-Catholic
sentiments in America that were held by influential people of the time. There was an AntiCatholic Protestant preacher named Lyman Beecher who spoke out against Catholicism.
Historian Katie Oxx writes, “He claimed the nation’s success, its providential expansion, and the
correct education of its children were irrevocably linked and all depended on ridding them of
Catholic influence.”14 Anti-Catholic sentiment was present in America, as can be seen from the
authors of the pamphlet against John Quinsy Adams and from the work of Lyman Beecher.
Defense of the Catholic Church’s role in America was needed. So people such as Bishop John
England and the authors of the “Address to the Catholic Voters of Baltimore” had to be careful
about their religious ideas spilling forth into political ideas of the public.
By the 1820s the definition of separation of Church and State had changed since the trip
by Charles Carroll to Canada in 1776. In 1776 the separation of Church and State simply meant
religious freedom, but by the 1820s the separation of Church and State was becoming a complete
separation of any influences of religion and politics upon each other. The only time religion may
be used to influence politics was when politics had seemed to violate religious ideas. When
religious ideas seemed to be violated, a person would feel that he had the right to protest and
influence political thinking.
In the 1840s the idea of Church and State was still being considered, and historians were
turning towards the story of Charles Carroll for influence upon the idea of Church and State. The
Journal of Charles Carroll of Carrollton was published in 1845 by the Maryland Historical
Society. The idea that the society was interested in the journal of a Catholic political figure who
went on a failed mission to Canada emphasizes the fact that people were considering the
influences of religion in politics. The Historical Society was trying to preserve the memory of a
Catholic who held a heavy influence in early, American politics. Specific places in the journal
itself point to the idea that Charles Carroll was playing more than a tag-along role in the mission
to Canada. Charles Carroll seemed to have been part of the decision making process during the
trip to Canada. Carroll writes in his journal, “Before we left the camp we ordered a detachment
up to Montreal, under the command of Colonel De Haas . . . .”15 Another reference is made to
13
Ibid.
Katie Oxx, The Nativist Movement in America: Religious Conflict in the Nineteenth Century (New York:
Routledge, 2013), 32-33.
15
Charles Carroll, Journal of Charles Carroll of Charleston: During his Visit to Canada in 1776, as One of the
Commissioners of Congress, ed. Brantz Mayer, (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1845), Vol. 131, no.9,
Emmitsburg, Mount St. Mary’s College, 79.
14
Lesieur 5
knowledge of the happenings of the Revolutionary war a little later in the journal. Charles
Carroll states, “We left Montreal this day at three o’clock, to go to Chamblay, to be present at a
council of war of the generals and field officers . . .”16 He then goes on to describe the decision
made at the council. These two examples show that Carroll knew what was occurring and the use
of the pronoun “we” in the first example implies that Carroll was part of the decision making of
parts of the Revolutionary War. These examples from the journal do not directly show the idea
of Church and State felt in the United States during the Revolutionary War. The journal does
show the influence that Carroll did hold upon the expedition to Canada. Combine this idea with
the fact that he went to Canada because he was Catholic, then a historian will realize that Church
and State were very influential upon each other.
This idea of Church and State during the Revolutionary War was explored in 1845 by the
author of the introduction to Carroll’s journal. The author of the introduction, Brantz Mayer, was
interested in analyzing the impact of Carroll being sent to Canada. Mayer writes, ‘”The object of
the mission was doubt-less two-fold: first, to induce the Catholics to join us, or remain neutral;
and secondly, to make such military demonstrations as would secure us the province . . . .”17
Historians recognized the use of Carroll as Catholic influence towards Canada. They used
religion to further their political agenda. Mayer saw the use of Carroll as a way to pacify Canada
towards the United States when he wrote, “. . . he [Charles Carroll] felt, as deeply as any man in
the colonies, that religion should never become an auxiliary of strife, and that it was his duty, as
her minister, to allay, if possible, the angry spirits of the times . . . .”18 Charles Carroll was a
symbol of using religion in politics to bring about peace through understanding. This use of
Carroll as a symbol may have been popular during the1840s. The end to the introduction states,
“The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton has been so frequently written, that the people are
familiar with it.”19 Many people knew about Charles Carroll in the 1840s and the impact he had
upon society. Therefore, Charles Carroll held a heavy influence upon the United States in the
1840s. As a political figure that used religion to formulate American foreign policy, people in the
1840s would try to discover the needed relationship between Church and State in America.
The role of Church and State was being questioned in the 1840s when the Catholic
Church was having problems with the public school system. Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick was
adamant against the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools. As a result, Bishop
Kenrick tried to convince Protestants, specifically Protestants who did not use the King James
Version, with an appeal to religious liberty.20 People were searching for how much influence a
Church or a State can give each other. Charles Carroll was used as a Church influence upon
politics, and so the Church could, therefore, have a say in the education of children in public
schools. On the other hand, the extent of religious liberty in regards to the State was questioned.
The State might have the right to influence religion through the use of a Bible, if a Church could
influence a State. The legal extent of religious influence in politics was not clear, both sides, the
Church and the State, seemed to be violating the role of the other.
By the 1850s the consideration between Church and State had reached a new point in the
debate. The new view that was seen in the 1850s can be reflected in a speech made in 1854 to the
16
Ibid., 81.
Brantz Mayer, introduction to Journal of Charles Carroll of Charleston: During his Visit to Canada in 1776, as
One of the Commissioners of Congress, ed. Brantz Mayer (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1845), Vol. 131,
no.9, Emmitsburg, Mount St. Mary’s College, 21.
18
Ibid., 14.
19
Ibid., 34.
20
Oxx, The Nativist Movement in America, 60.
17
Lesieur 6
Catholic Institute of Baltimore by Fr. John McCaffrey, the President of Mount St. Mary’s
College. McCaffrey clarified the Catholic Church’s position about Church and State in America
and in the United States. The view of the Church in America was that the role of Church and
Stare was different for the pope over the Papal States then the Church in America. McCaffrey
argues, “Within the limits of the Ecclesiastical States the Sovereign Pontiff is indeed both Prince
and Pastor . . . .”21 The pope may have temporal power over the government in the Papal States,
but he does not have power over other governments in the world, specifically the United States.
The pope does not have the power over individual, foreign governments because the Church
transcends the temporal power of governments through non-physical matters. McCaffrey
declares, “. . . the Church is a supernatural, divine institution, the civil government is natural; the
Church is universal, ‘teaching all nations,’ the State is always limited and local . . . .”22 The
worry by some people may then be that the pope will use his spiritual power as an excuse to
overtake the temporal power of others. McCaffrey argues that this may seem true but the papal
power over moral affairs is strictly for the spirituality of the Church. He argues, “In condemning
bold, unblushing adultery, whether the criminal be serf or sovereign, I am not aware that the
successors of the Apostles were transcending their legitimate authority.”23 The pope uses his
power to prevent the moral decay of the people. If the pope does not act as a guide for people in
high or low positions, then there is not an example to follow. McCaffrey vehemently states in his
speech, “The religious contests, the civil wars, and bloody revolutions, of the last three centuries,
and the present demoralized and volcanic state of society, are penalties the world has paid for
ceasing to respect it.”24 According to McCaffrey, Americans should not worry about the political
influence of popes over foreign nations. The pope has only tried to maintain the morality of the
world. If the pope directly interferes with the political affairs of a nation, then the pope is
overstepping his spiritual power as the head of the Catholic Church. McCaffrey wanted
Americans to realize that they should not worry about Catholics in the United Sates because the
pope does not have control over their political affairs.
Not only should Protestants in America be unafraid of Catholics in America because the
pope does not hold any influence in the political affairs of foreign nations, but also Protestant
Americans should be thankful for Catholics in America. Catholics are the first people to
exemplify a form of religious liberty in America. McCaffrey argues, “The Catholic colony of
Maryland was indeed an exception: Her Founders set the first example of liberality, and it was
partially followed by the Founders of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.”25 Non-Catholics in the
1850s may have been worried about the papal influence in America, but Catholics were the first
to practice religious freedom. Catholics cherished the religious liberty that they were able to
attain. Catholics in America sacrificed themselves for their liberty and religious freedom, just as
other Americans mage major sacrifices for the freedom of America. American Catholics are true
patriots, just as Protestant Americans consider themselves. McCaffrey uses the examples of
Charles Carroll and Catholic, French troops used during the American Revolution when he
announces, “In its adoption the men, who, though differing in religion, had mingled their blood
on the battle field, or guided harmoniously the councils of the nation during the long and perilous
Rev. John McCaffrey, “Church and State: A Lecture Delivered before The Catholic Institute of Baltimore”
(Baltimore: Hedian & O’Brien, 1854) Vol. 152, no.5, Emmitsburg, Mount St. Mary’s College, 5.
22
Ibid., 16.
23
Ibid., 14.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., 3.
21
Lesieur 7
struggle . . . .”26 McCaffrey is implying that Catholic patriots are a type of martyr. Martyrs were
highly looked to in the Catholic Church as examples of true faith and courage who suffered for
the truth. By comparing Catholic Americans to martyrs, McCaffrey is placing a high honor on
American patriots. He is arguing that Catholics respect religious freedom because of the ability
to see Catholic patriots as martyrs. Catholics fought for their religious freedom with their blood,
making themselves a martyr and Catholic advocate for religious freedom.
McCaffrey argues further that it is not the Catholic Church that should be defending
itself. The true enemy to religious freedom in the mind of McCaffrey is the Protestant faith.
Americans should be worried about the influence that Protestantism places upon temporal
affairs. McCaffrey emphatically condemns the Protestant church when he boldly announces in
his speech, “You may in fact travel over Protestant Europe . . . . In all those countries you will
find, not only that there is an established Religion, but that this religion was first accepted and
prescribed by the temporal rulers, that it is supported by them . . . .”27 The rulers of the local
government, not a foreign church leader, were the ones who established the religions in their
nations. The individual rulers are the ones about which Americans should be worried. McCaffrey
was more worried about what the Protestant church through government rulers may do to
religious freedom in America than what the pope may do. McCaffrey hoped to show that
Protestant countries violated the natural rights of humans more than a Catholic nation in Europe.
He defends this argument when he declared that Catholic nations such as France or Belgium
were more considerate of the rights of people than Protestant nations.28 The persecutor of
religious freedom was not Catholicism, according to McCaffrey the persecutor of religious
freedom was Protestantism. The fear that McCaffrey wanted his listeners to realize was that
religious freedom may become jeopardized in America. Americans may be persecuted for their
faith and an established religion may form. The difference between McCaffrey’s view and nonCatholics in America was that McCaffrey thought that religious freedom would be violated
internally by the government, just as Protestant nations in Europe had done. Near the end of his
speech, McCaffrey warns, “. . . I would warn you that the danger of the times, and particularly
here, is not that the Church shall overpower the State . . ., but the real danger is, that politicians
shall directly or indirectly, grasp all power, spiritual and temporal.”29 McCaffrey defended the
Church’s position on Church and State and the pope’s spiritual power over all Catholics and
temporal power over the papal states by attacking the Protestant church itself. He wanted to
clarify the Catholic position upon Church and State, while easing the anti-Catholic sentiments
felt during the 1850s because of the papal power over the Catholic Church.
Bishop John Hughes agreed with McCaffrey’s views about Church and State. Bishop
Hughes believed that the pope had power in the Papal States.30 The Catholic Church saw a
difference between papal influence in the Papal States and papal influence in foreign nations. In
nations excluding the Papal States, Hughes believed in religious freedom. Religious freedom was
natural right of humanity that governments should allow and for which citizens should
advocate.31 A government enacted religious freedom, but the government in doing so was
respecting the individual liberties of the people. In this way, the pope could avoid scrutiny for his
26
27
28
29
30
31
Ibid., 4.
Ibid., 20.
Ibid., 26.
Ibid., 27.
Smith, “The Fundamental Church-State Tradition ,” 494.
Ibid.
Lesieur 8
political involvement in the Papal States, if the individual citizens did not desire separation of
Church and State. The pope could still not hold any political influence over foreign nations. He
was only a spiritual leader for the Catholics of the world.
Father John McCaffrey and Bishop John Hughes had to defend their position because the
1850s were a tumultuous time for the Catholic Church in America, specifically for the Catholic
belief in the pope as a Church leader. In 1854 anti-Catholics rallied and destroyed a massive,
marble stone donated by the pope. The Papal Stone was to be placed in the Washington
Monument, but anti-Catholic sentiment prevented the stone from being placed in the
monument.32 Certain Americans were afraid of the possible influence of the stone, and the
monument was to be a symbol of patriotism in the United States. The Papal Stone would ruin the
patriotic symbolism of the Washington Monument.33 The papal stone represented a possible
foreign influence to the United States. Anything that was not Protestant was seen as possibly
dangerous.34 The idea that Catholicism was foreign to America had spurred McCaffrey to argue
that Catholics were patriots who suffered for religious freedom. Catholicism was feared by nonCatholics in America, even though Catholic leaders argued that there was nothing to fear.
American Catholics supported separation of Church and State. Catholics in the 1800s had to
defend themselves from anti-Catholic sentiments.
True separation of Church and State cannot exist when religion exists. Religion defines
the mind, beliefs, and culture of a group of people. When a State has a democratic style of
government that allows the promulgation of individual opinions, then religion will be used. It
may not be directly but will be influential at least indirectly. A person cannot fully eliminate
their religious beliefs from impacting their political beliefs. Also, many times, a problem will
arise when a person will feel obligated to speak out against the action or idea supported by the
government. America saw it many times whether it be about a stone, a book, or words. A true
democracy cannot have complete separation of Church and State. The Church will always speak
through its followers for their beliefs. In a nation like America, where democracy is held dear,
religious tendencies will naturally spill forth into the public sphere and influence the political
agenda of the nation.
This article has presented an overview of the changing influences of the Church to the
State through the changing definition of separation of Church and State. The 1770s, during the
Revolutionary War era saw a significant tie between religion and politics. The Church was used
to advocate for the State, and as a result the Church was able to hold a significant role in the
advancement of the American nation. In the 1820s the Church and State were seen to be separate
entities that should not overlap in anyway. This did not stop the overlap from happening, either
from John Quincy Adams with his religious biases or by Catholics defending their faith by
attacking Adams. By the 1840s, the idea of Church and State was again being questioned, as the
role of Charles Carroll in the founding of the American nation was being examined. Although
the Church tried to sway the State in matters, such as Bibles in public schools, the 1850s saw a
desire for complete separation of organized religious influences in politics. Many Americans
feared the possible influences of the pope over America through American Catholics. Americas
has seen its definition of Church and State influenced through need, biases, and fear. The early
phase of America from the 1770s-1850s has shown that the Church and religion can hold a huge
32
33
34
Oxx, “Destruction of the ‘Pope’s Stone’,” 84.
Ibid.
Ibid., 85.
Lesieur 9
sway in the State, as a major influence of people in the world. Separation of Church and State
may have existed in Spirit, but it did not exist in reality.
Lesieur 10
Bibliography
Carroll, Charles. Journal of Charles Carroll of Charleston: During his Visit to Canada in
1776, as One of the Commissioners of Congress, edited by Brantz Mayer, 37-84.
Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1845. Vol. 131, no.9. Emmitsburg, Mount St.
Mary’s College.
Guilday, Peter. “John Carroll’s Mission to Canada.” In The Life and Times of John Carroll, 92105. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1922.
Jenkins, William, Edward I. Wilson, Matthew Bennett, William George Read, Philip Laurenson, T.
Parkin Scott, John Creagh. “Address To The Catholic Voters Of Baltimore.” Baltimore: Lucas &
Deaver, 1828. Vol. 169, no.11. Emmittsburg, Mount St. Mary’s College.
Mayer, Brantz. introduction to Journal of Charles Carroll of Charleston: During his Visit to
Canada in 1776, as One of the Commissioners of Congress, 2-35, edited by Brantz
Mayer. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1845. Vol. 131, no.9, Emmitsburg,
Mount St. Mary’s College.
McCaffrey, Rev. John. “Church and State: A Lecture Delivered before The Catholic Institute of
Baltimore.” Baltimore: Hedian & O’Brien, 1854. Vol. 152, no.5, Emmitsburg, Mount St.
Mary’s College.
Noll, Mark A. “The Church and the American Revolution: Historiographical Pitfalls, Problems,
and Progress.” Fides et Historia 8, no. 1 (1975): 2-19. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/
pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=d368d3d2-0ae2-4484-b791-189889b91661%40
sessionmgr115&hid=106.
Oxx, Katie. The Nativist Movement in America: Religious Conflict in the Nineteenth Century.
New York: Routledge, 2013.
Smith, Elwyn A. “The Fundamental Church-State Tradition of the Catholic Church in the United
States.” Church History 38, no. 4 (1969): 486-505. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/
pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=98ae3d56-1220-459f-b054-2b7e67399e59%40session
mgr11&hid=104.