It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919.
First, allow me to make one minor correction. Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons was first published in pamphlet form in 1853, and expanded to book form in 1858. As it was first published in Scotland, I wouldn't expect it to have made significant inroads into American Protestant subculture until later, which may account for your 1919 date.
You make a very interesting observation however. Consider that the more "successful" sects of 19th century restorationism were still on the rise at that time. IMO the bluntness of anti-Protestant media such as "Radio Replies" only dumped more fuel on the "anti-Catholic" fire that, as you rightly point out, was a common theme among the emerging restorationist mindset. Hislop's book, given that Hislop was a member of the recent Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) offshoot, would only serve to enflame the restorationists further, given Hislop's denomination's reputation for having well-educated ministers.
For the lurkers, Hislop's book is available online. Be warned that it is 300+ pages long, and deals with the alleged pagan origins of the Roman Catholic Church, a.k.a. "mystery Babylon" in Hislop's book.
From the introduction:
...Rome is in very deed the Babylon of the Apocalypse; that the essential character of her system, the grand objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her priesthood and their orders, have all been derived from ancient Babylon; and, finally, that the Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar. In the warfare that has been waged against the domineering pretensions of Rome, it has too often been counted enough merely to meet and set aside her presumptuous boast, that she is the mother and mistress of all churches--the one Catholic Church, out of whose pale there is no salvation. If ever there was excuse for such a mode of dealing with her, that excuse will hold no longer. If the position I have laid down can be maintained, she must be stripped of the name of a Christian Church altogether; for if it was a Church of Christ that was convened on that night, when the pontiff-king of Babylon, in the midst of his thousand lords, "praised the gods of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of stone" (Dan 5:4), then the Church of Rome is entitled to the name of a Christian Church; but not otherwise. This to some, no doubt, will appear a very startling position; but it is one which it is the object of this work to establish; and let the reader judge for himself, whether I do not bring ample evidence to substantiate my position.
Well, OK, I initially got the information from this page on Amazon.
The Two Babylons was an anti-Catholic religious pamphlet produced initially by the Scottish theologian and Protestant Presbyterian Alexander Hislop in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Roman Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia old conspiracy.
But upon further research, I see that this information is incorrect...but things are fairly inconclusive. This page shows a digitized book dated 1932 that is supposedly the fourth edition (1st Ed, 1916; 2d Ed, 1921; 3d Ed, 1926; 4th Ed, 1929). On the other hand, there is this digitized book, dated 1862, which is supposedly a third edition (with a second edition dated Dec 1857).
So you go figure...
Now, as to your statement, Consider that the more "successful" sects of 19th century restorationism were still on the rise at that time. IMO the bluntness of anti-Protestant media such as "Radio Replies" only dumped more fuel on the "anti-Catholic" fire that, as you rightly point out, was a common theme among the emerging restorationist mindset. Hislop's book, given that Hislop was a member of the recent Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) offshoot, would only serve to enflame the restorationists further, given Hislop's denomination's reputation for having well-educated ministers.
I think you summarize my point very nicely, although I would submit that the bias was not limited to "restorationist" sects, per se. This doctrine existed throughout Protestantism. Remember a couple of years ago when I started posting the anti-Papal portions of the founding documents from the traditional Protestant denominations? (e.g., Smalcald, Westminster, Savoy) These articles were not retracted until well into the 20th Century (and, in the case of some denominations that have further splintered since the Reformation, haven't been retracted to this date( I will be the first to state, however, that the degree to which these positions are actively taught is, especially in these days, minimal, particularly when one considers the very active nature of the Restorationist sects, so I would hate to make something like that a sticking point.
I bring the above up because it's apparent that many of the questions received and answered through these books appear to be, not only from Restorationist Protestants, but from Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Reformation Protestants, as well.
I think that it is fortunate, though, that both sides of the argument have stepped back from the brink in recent decades.
You wrote:
“As it was first published in Scotland, I wouldn’t expect it to have made significant inroads into American Protestant subculture until later, which may account for your 1919 date.”
No. Hislop’s book was known in America shortly after its ORIGINAL publication. Hislop found a ready made market for his garbage filled book here in the states. The 1919 date was probably mentioned because that is the most common old cover page of Hislop’s book posted on the internet. Check the wikipedia page for Hislop’s book and you’ll see what I mean.
The greatest problem with Hislop’s book is that it is COMPLETE RUBBISH. Even those who once believed in it, can come to see the truth of it in time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#Criticism