Posted on 02/02/2009 6:39:40 PM PST by rogernz
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: One of the most overlooked facts of the American Civil War Era is the sympathy the South gained from Europe's most influential monarch - the pope of Rome.
Pope Pius IX never actually signed any kind of alliance or 'statement of support' with the Confederate States of America, but to those who understand the nuance of papal protocol, what he did do was quite astonishing. He acknowledged President Jefferson Davis as the "Honorable President of the Confederate States of America."
From this we can glean three things about Pope Pius IX...
1. He considered Jefferson Davis worthy of the customary title "Honorable."
2. He acknowledged him as president of a nation.
3. In doing so, he officially recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign entity, separate from the United States of America.
In the letter in which this recognition was made, he sent an autographed picture of himself, along with a miniature crown of thorns, woven by the pope's own fingers. The crown is currently on display at the Confederate Museum in New Orleans. Upon viewing the crown, one can't imagine how the pope could have woven it without pricking his hands and finders several times. The gesture was an act of supreme sympathy, for you see President Davis was awaiting trial in a Union prison at the time this crown was made.
There are many possible reasons why this pontiff would be sympathetic to the CSA and her president, but the most likely one was that Pope Pius IX recognized in the culture and ideology of the South a mindset opposed to the advance of liberal modernism. You see it was Pius IX who composed the famous "Syllabus of Errors," which condemned the modernist philosophies of liberalism, humanism, secularism and marxism. It is speculated that Pius IX saw in the Confederacy a political movement steeped in European Christian tradition, and therefore a potential ally against liberal modernism on the North American continent. Alas, the Confederacy was defeated, and President Davis was captured. As the 'Deconstruction' of the South commenced, and Davis awaited his trial, it is understandable why the pope would be sympathetic.
Pope Pius IX was a revered figure in the post war South. General Robert E. Lee kept a portrait of him in his house, and referred to him as the South's only true friend during her time of need. Both Davis and Lee were Episcopalians, a denomination which had many things in common with Catholicism before the 20th century influence of modernism of course. Davis was frequently visited by Southern Catholic nuns during his imprisonment, who delivered messages for him and prayed for his release. He eventually was released, having never stood trial, on the grounds that he committed no real crime. It is believed the majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court at that time acknowledged the right of secession.
Southern Americans of today should take comfort knowing that the old Confederacy did have a European friend, and it just happened to be one of the most respected people in the world - not only a head of state, but also the leader of the world's largest Christian religion. The day will come when Pope Pius IX will be canonized as a Saint. He has already been beatified, which puts him well on his way. When that day comes, Southerners will have a special bragging right, not enjoyed by many nations even today. They will not only be able to boast of his sympathies during and after the great War, but they will also have in their collective possession a relic of the man - the crown of thorns woven by his own hands.
Many states and localities are also strongly against the right to bear arms flatly guaranteed to American citizens by the 2nd Amendment. I'm glad our Union heroes fought for the Constitution against the Confederates' crusade for all-powerful dictatorial state and local government.
That's exactly what I said. The US army fought to preserve the Union and Constitution, not to establish an all-powerful federal government.
But the Confederacy seceded to preserve slavery as Mississippi's declaration of secession stated:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."
That's history, not Hollywood.
“Many states and localities are also strongly against the right to bear arms flatly guaranteed to American citizens by the 2nd Amendment. I’m glad our Union heroes fought for the Constitution against the Confederates’ crusade for all-powerful dictatorial state and local government.”
This is the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”.
Epic fail...
“That’s exactly what I said. The US army fought to preserve the Union and Constitution, not to establish an all-powerful federal government.”
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
“Save the Union” = “Save the Crown”
Same crap, different messengers.
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.”
Who was that? John Adams? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?
Spare me the crocodile tears about slavery. Yes it was wrong but its a moot point. The entire Western world was moving towards that direction as would the USA or the COnfederacy is it had been allowed to survive.....without so many having to die.
That doesnt change whats above now does it? “Save the Union” goes against everything this country was founded upon.
This is the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”.
Epic fail...
Every bit as valid as equating the suppression of a slaveowners' rebellion with a fight for an all powerful dictatorial federal government.
“Every bit as valid as equating the suppression of a slaveowners’ rebellion with a fight for an all powerful dictatorial federal government.”
Whatever helps you feel all warm & cuddly at night.
But dont forget that this is what you stand against:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
They can stop abortion by not having them. I have yet to see an abortion clinic kidnapping pregnant women off the street. And any child is free to pray privately in school.
.and very soon you wont be able to stop your children from being taught YOU are a horrible person if you dont support gay marriage.
Then it's your job as a parent to teach them differently, or home school, or send them to a private school more to your ideological satisfaction.
Like school prayer? forced bussing? gay marriage? (all imposed against the will of the people) Many states are heavily anti-abortion...where is the freedom on these things? All are imposed by the federal government against the will of the people.
So you don't believe that your vote counts? That the Constitution can be amended? Or are you just unhappy that not enough people agree with you to make the changes you want? As far as many states being heavily anti-abortion, not so much. Utah is about 60-40 against abortion and it goes down from there. Pro-choice beats pro-life in 3/4ths of the states.
Saving the crown is not the same as preserving a Union and Constitution that "We the People" had agreed upon.
Spare me the crocodile tears about slavery. Yes it was wrong but its a moot point. The entire Western world was moving towards that direction as would the USA or the COnfederacy is it had been allowed to survive.....without so many having to die.
A demise of slavery slow or otherwise would have been inconvenient for a regime with a cornerstone of slavery as its own vice president boldly asserted.
If thats honestly how you feel then may your masters treat you well because you’ve given up the liberty thing a long time ago.
Enjoy the coming socialism. After all, you can just choose not to participate right?
And if that’s honestly how you feel, why aren’t you out there blowing up federal buildings?
“The recourse to the Declaration of Independence is rather ironic considering the slave empire didn’t much like attention to that document.”
Again, stop getting your ideas from Hollywood & crack a few history books. The constutution was trashed during the Ciivil War. I know you dont like to hear it, I dont like to hear the slave stuff, but there are uncomfortable truths on both sides.
“dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,...”
That was killed in the Civil War by the Union. That cannot be argued.
“The reference to revolution and mention of inaliable God-given rights might give the human property ideas and make them uppity”
No more so than the founders of our country...you seem to block out the parts of our history you dont like.
Grow up! Yopu’re trying to judge the values of people who are as far removed from todays values as you could imagine.
You forgot “racist, homophobe, islamophobe, big bad meanie, etc...
Dont be a cry baby because you lost an argument
You’re the one who lost the argument. Only you lost it with American society and the voting population and all you can do about it is whine about how unfair it all is.
The slaves in Portuguese slave-ships might disagree.
However, in the Catholic world, the slave had certain rights (religious instruction, baptism, marriage, the right to own property, buy his freedom, not to be sold without his family, etc.).
How often was this the case? Any data? I'd like some sources to verify authenticity of this claim.
This certainly was not always respected - the Portuguese completely ignored these requirements, for example - but theoretically, from the Pope’s point of view, slavery would have been more like a cross between serfdom and long-term indentured servitude.
Excuses... excuses. I'd rather wager that the Vatican was sensitive to the inflows to its coffers from the Spanish and Portuguese empires that thrived on slave labor.
Besides, I think you're underestimating what the Pope and the Catholic Church would have known about the condition of the slaves in the Americas, including the United States, and the Latin regions. It was the 1860s, give or take a few years, for crying out loud, and America was not behind any "iron curtain".
It appears ridiculous that the Pope would know so little about the pitiful condition of the slaves in America, in particular, and the Americas, in general.
The voters in East Tennessee rejected secession by over 4-1. In the Greeneville Convention, the people of Union-loyal East Tennessee requested separation from Tennessee and the confederacy. A strategically vital railroad ran through the valley of East Tennessee. Do you think that their request should have been granted?
[i]“I’m not aware that the Confederates ever used the Declaration as a basis for their action. They used secession, a presumed Constitutional concept, as their basis.”[/i]
Once again: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Other than drawing it in crayon, I don’t I know of anything that could be more clear to the right of secession unless you think our founders were only joking from one founding document to the next.
[i]“The concepts of a right of revolution would have been inconvenient not only with reference to their slave population but also with large strategic regions of their domain where the citizens overwhelmingly wished to stay in the Union.”[/i]
No more inconvenient in 1961 than in 1776. Once again, you block out the parts of history you don’t like.
[i]The voters in East Tennessee rejected secession by over 4-1. In the Greeneville Convention, the people of Union-loyal East Tennessee requested separation from Tennessee and the confederacy. A strategically vital railroad ran through the valley of East Tennessee. Do you think that their request should have been granted?[/i]
Beats me. I would need more info than you’re providing to even guess.
For later.
This will be a fun one.
Had the Confederacy allowed E. Tennessee to depart, the Confederacy would have lost a vital railroad connecting Georgia and the gulf states to the Virginia theater. Maybe even more vital in the long run they would have had a region hostile to the Confederacy situated in strategic Chattanooga, the gateway to the Deep South which would have served as a political magnet for nearby ant-reb regions in northern Georgia, Western NC and Northern Alabama.
But the rebs did not do that and proved they had no respect for the principles of the Declaration. And in relation to your argument, how can you describe the Union as fighting for tyranny against the wishes for self determination of the South and not equally describe the Confederacy as fighting for tyranny against the wishes for self determination of the people of East Tennessee?
I don’t believe any of this.
I recall an anecdote about this in Harry Crocker’s history of the Catholic Church, “Triumph.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.