Central Bureau Publications Historical Brochure No. III I..e~ ~().v-t ~1'f) M. wfttot(e-.!> a~ .. · A B'Z.. (6q 8 c .o'). , Catholics and the American Declaration of Independence 0774-1776) By REV. JOHN M. LENHART, O.M.Cap. Pittsburgh, Pa. CENTRAL BUREAU, C. C. V. OF A. ST. LOUIS, MO. 1934 Central Bureau Publications Historical Brochure No. III Catholics and the American Declaration of Independence (1774-1776) By REV. JOHN M. LENHART, O.M.Cap. Pittsburgh, Pa. CENTRAL BUREAU, C. C. V. OF A. ST. LOUIS, MO. 193 4 The undersigned testifies that the pamphlet "Cath- olics and the American Declaration of Independence" does not contain anything against Faith and morals and hereby grants permission to have it printed. Very Rev. Sigmund Cratz, O.M.Cap., Provincial Pittsburgh, October 2, 1934 NIHIL OBSTAT J oannes Rothensteiner Censor Librorum Sti. Ludovici, die 26. Septembris, 1934 IMPRIMATUR ·P. P. Crane, V.G. Archidioecesis St. Ludovici Sti. Ludovici, die 19a . Octobris, 1934 1,000-10-25-'34. ~3 Catholics and the A merican Declaration 0/ Independence (1774-1 776 ) Widely divergent opinions regarding the at- titude of the Catholic settlers of the English colonies of North America towards American Independence before and after the Declaration are found among the Catholic historians of this country. John Gilmary Shea wishes us to be- lieve the Catholics living in the Thirteen Colo- nies had "spontaneously, universally and ener- getically given their adhesion to the cause of America and, when the time came, to American independence," that "there was no faltering, no division," that "every Catholic was a Whig" (supporter of the Americans), that "there were no Catholic Tories" (supporters of Eng- land) 1), and that "the Catholics were to a man, with their clergy, staunch and true [to the Americans] which can be said of none of the sects."2) Shea's views have been generally ac- cepted by Catholic writers in this country and have been propagated in countless books and periodicals up to the present. According to these Catholic historians evgry Catholic man and woman living in the Thirteen Colonies shared the view of their P rotestant compatriots, that they were "entitled by the bounty of an indulgent Creator to freedom," joined them "in resolving to be free and in re- 1) Catholics and Catholicity in the Days of the Amer- ican Revolution, in: Proceedings of the U. S. Catholic Historical Societ y of New York, 188;), p. 20. , .. 2) A me?'ican Oatholic Qua?·te?·ly Review, Jan. 1876, p. 154. -3- jecting, with disdain, the fetters of slavery," were "determined to live free, or not at all, and resolved that posterity shall never reproach them with having brought slaves into the world," that "a licentious Ministry riotted in the ruins of the rights of mankind" and caused "unmerited and unparalleled oppressions."3) Martin 1. J. Griffin disproved Shea's asser- tion by pointing out that very many Catholics in the thirteen colonies fought on the British side or favored the British in other ways. 4) Such an attitude was most logical in view of the bitter hostility manifested by the American Patriots towards the Catholic religion. 5 ) Be- sides, universal espousal of the American cause was utterly impqssible, as is proven by later history, since the Catholics of this country have never yet "been a unit, a solid body, on any public measure, even those directly concerning the Church."6) Accordingly we must not be surprised at finding in the thirteen colonies a great number of Catholics who remained loyal to their king and country and did not heed Washington's invitation "to range under the standard of general liberty" and "to take up arms in defense of liberty, property, wives, and children"; who were not incited by the pleasing prospect of "the full enjoyment of the blessings 3) Address of the Continental Congress to the Op- pressed Inhabitants of Canada, May 29,1775, in: Journal of Congress, vol. I, Philadelphia, 1800, pp. 100-102, and in the Library of Congress edition, vol. II, Washing- ton, 1905, pp. 68-70. 4) Catholics and the American Revolution, vol. I, Ridley Park, Pa., 1907, pp. 64, 131-132, 325-339, vol. II, Philadelphia, 1909, pp. 135-153, 161-184, 215. 5) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 1-33, 34-39, 129, 211-215, 242-245, 246-249, vol. II, pp. 98, 136, 160. 6) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p . 218. -4- of a free government"; who would not "bring forth into action sentiments of freedom",7) nor "generously dare to participate with their fellow-subjects, in the sweets of that security which is the glorious lot of freedom."8) A third opinion regarding the political atti- tude of Catholics of the thirteen colonies was set forth lately by Theodore Maynard. "The paradoxical position of the Catholics during the Revolution," he writes,9) "can only be ac- counted for on the ground of the perception on the part of the Catholics that the political prin- ciples of the Declaration of Independence were in accordance with Catholic Philosophy." "American Catholics with few exceptions, not at the instigation of their clergy and not be- cause of the compelling influence of their lay leaders, instinctively saw that the American cause was just, and that it was supported by Catholic teaching."IO) . This view of Mr. Maynard is as little tenable as that of J. G. Shea. Mr. Griffin's opinion in this matter is alone correct; yet unfortunately he overlooks certain aspects which tend to qualify some of his sweeping statements. The part which the Catholics of Canada, Louisiana, and Europe played in the struggle for inde- pendence is so decisive that we need invent no gratuitous stories about the serviGes of the 7) Address to the Inhabitants of Canada, issued by George Washington in September of 1775, quoted by Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 128-129, 274-275. 8) Address of the Provincial Congress at New York to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, June 2, 1775, quoted by Griffin, op. cit., I, p. 130. 9) 'The Ame?'ican Me?"C'lwy, March, 1933, New York, pp. 354-355. 10) Ibid., p. 359. -5- Catholics in the thirteen colonies to the Amer- ican cause. We cannot obtain a true idea of the attitude of Catholics in the colonies towards American Independence without taking into consideration the animosity of the American Patriots against the Catholic religion. Mr. Griffin is particu: larly severe in his strictures upon the bigoted Americans and ascribes to anti-Catholic senti- ments of the revolting colonists an influence which is not warranted by facts. Did Bigotry Beget the American Revolution? The political considerations set forth in the American Declaration of Independence have been usually accepted as explaining the origin and justifying the course of action of the American Revolution. Of late, however, Cath- olic historians like Cardinal Gasquet and Mar- tin I. J. Griffin sought to prove that the Ameri- can Revolt was caused by bigotry, stirred up by the passage of the Quebec Act by the Brit- ish Parliament in May, 1774. By that act the British government extended the Province of Quebec to the banks of the Mississippi and the Ohio, so that it became conterminous in the West with the English colonies on the Atlantic ocean, restored the French civil laws and granted some sort of freedom of worship to the Cath- olics. The Americans regarded this as one of the "intolerable" acts whereby the "free Pro- testant colonies were hemmed in and Popery was established in the neighboring province of Canada." Mr. Griffin marshals a long array of evi- dences of hostility displayed by the Americans against the Catholic religion during the initial -6- stages of the Revolution. This list could be greatly extended by adducing similar instances of outbursts of bIgotry. We shall single out only the most striking cases of anti-Catholic hostility, furnished by the Continental Con- gress, the representative body of the revolting colonists. On October 14, 1774, Congress resolved "that the act passed in the British Parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger [from so total a dis- similarity of religion, law and government] of the neighboring British colonies," is an "in- fringement and violation of the rights of the colonists" to which "Americans cannot sub- mit."ll ) Six days later, October 20, Congress ap- proved the Memorial to the People of Great Britain. This document was signed by the members, fifty-two in all, including George Washington. Congress says in this public ap- peal to the British people that "several oppres- sive acts have been passed by the British Par- liament respecting the town of Boston and Massachusetts-Bay, and also an act for extend- ing the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, estab- lishing an arbitrary government therein, and by .... the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them."12) 11) Journal of Congress, vol. 1., Phila., 1800, p. 30. 12) Ibid., p. 32. -7- Yet Congress went farther on the following day, October 21, in its Address to the People of Great Britain which was approved and signed on that day. "We think," this body addresses the British people, "the legislature of Great Britain is not authorized by the constitution, to establish a religion [i. e. the Catholic], fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets .... And by an other act the Dominion of Canada is to be extended, modelled, and governed, as that disunited from us, detached from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudice.s, that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their 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 them- selves .... Nor can we suppress our astonish- ment, that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country [Canada], a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion through every part of the world .... Admit that the Ministry by the power of Britain, and the aid of our Roman Catholic neighbor, should be able to carry the point of taxation, and reduce us to a state of perfect humiliation and slavery .... May not a Ministry with the same armies enslave you? ... Remember the taxes from America, the wealth and, we may add, the men, and particularly the Roman Catholics of this vast continent, will then be in the power of your enemies."13) 13) Ibid., pp. 37-42. -8- On the same day, October 21, Congress ap- proved the Memorial to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies of North America, which again, but in milder terms, denounced the Quebec Act. "In Parliament," Congress tells the Loyalists of America, "an act was passed for changing the government of Quebec, by which the Roman Catholic religion, instead of being tolerated, as stipulated by the treaty of peace, is established ... and the French laws are established in direct violation of his majesty's promise ... and the limits of that province are extended so as to comprehend those vast regions, that lie adjoining to the northerly and westerly boundaries of these colonies. The authors of this arbitrary arrangement flatter themselves, that the inhabitants [of Canada], deprived of liberty, and artfully provoked against those of another religion, will be proper instruments for assisting in the oppression of such as differ from them in mode of govern- ment and faith ... We cannot, upon a review of past events, be persuaded, that they [the people of England], the defenders of true re- ligion, and the asserters of the rights of man- kind, will take part against their affectionate Protestant brethren in the colonies."14) -How egregiously Congress erred! Before a year had rolled by, the dreaded Catholic Canadians had resisted all attempts of the British government to use them as "fit instruments for oppressing their Protestant neighbors," and the Protes- tant "defenders of true religion and the assert- ers of the rights of mankind" had rallied to the British standard to "subject them to a despotic government." . 14) Op. cit., pp. 50-52. -9- Finally on October 26, of the same year, Con- gress approved and signed the Address to the King, in which it again denounced the Quebec Act and reminded the king of his duty to up- hold the Protestant religion of his ancestors. "In Parliament an act was passed," they write, "for extending the limits of Quebec, abolishing the English and restoring the French laws .... and establishing an absolute government and the Roman Catholic religion throughout those vast regions, that border on the westerly and northerly boundaries of the free, Protestant English settlements ... We ever enjoyed our right under the auspices of your royal ancestors whose family was seated on the British throne, to rescue and secure a pious and gallant nation from the popery and despotism of a super- stitious and inexorable tyrant [the Catholic King James II. of England] ... Permit us ... to implore you, for the honor of Almighty God, whose pure religion our enemies are undermin- ing ... will not suffer the transcendent relation formed by these ties to be further violated."15) And the members of Congress, George Wash- ington included, again put their names to this effusion of anti-Catholic bigotry. This is the last insult offered the Catholic religion by Con- gress. When this body next met, after an adjournment of seven months, on May 10th, 1775, things had taken a different turn than the leaders of the Revolt had expected: co- operation of Catholics was sought and bigotry repressed. When the Quebec Act was men- tioned, we do not find Congress assailing estab- lit>hment · of popery in Canada but only the change of the form of government. 15) Op. cit., pp. 64-67. -10- The Continental Congress, although com- posed of men of worth, was swayed by anti- Catholic prejudices; even George Washington, the greatest of all the members, affixed his sig- nature to those fie rce attacks on the Catholic teligion. If the lea.ders of the Revolt were so antagonistic to the Catholics, we cannot expect the rank and file to have been moderate. In- deed, two-thirds of all the books and pamphlets published during those years in the thirteen colonies are strongly anti-Catholic and the newspapers and periodicals no less so. In view of this virulent hostility against the Catholic religion we may raise the question as to its influence upon the political development leading up to Independence. Mr. Griffin re- gards the fierce anti-Catholic hostility displayed by the American Patriots as "an active prin- ciple which brought on the Revolt and gave it force ... The leaders (he writes) sought to im- press upon the people that Protestantism had been assailed and might in America be over- thrown ... An active motive of the Americans in taking up arms against Great Britain was the belief of large and influential numbers that the Protestant Religion was being assailed and threatened with suppresion, and that the fear of 'establishing Popery' in America was, after all, the incentive which made great numbers of the Colonists take up arms who could not have been moved to activity by recitals of oppressive tax laws, which affected not directly the great body of the people, though they may have those in the mercantile pursuits."16) Griffin, however, goes farther. According to 16) Catholics and the American Revolution, vol. I, pp. 1-2. -11- him bigotry against the Catholics was not only one of many active causes, but the main and all- powerful cause, which brought on the Revolu- tion. "The Quebec Act of 1774," he writes, "brought on the actual war: the fighting"; it was "the last straw" hastening the outbreak of the Revolution; "resistance to 'Popery' was the cementing sentiment, the actuating motive which largely filled the army during the early days of the Revolution."17) He doubts "whether the oppressive laws alone would have moved the body of people to acts of resistance, had not Religion [bigotry] been a moving force upon the minds of the people."18) The eminent historian clearly overstates the force of bigotry during the initial years of the struggle with England. A very large number of Americans were not moved by its outcries: John Adams states that one-third of the people living in the thirteen colonies remained staunch supporters of England or Loyalists through- out the Revolution ;19) their number amounted to about 1,300,000. Another third was made up of such whose allegiance was divided or who were neutral. Only one-third of the people were real supporters of the American cause. Accordingly the greater majority of the colo- nists were not affected by the anti-Catholic propaganda carried on by the revolting Patri- ots; loyalty to their king and government would not allow them to place bigotry above patriotism. Griffin overlooks the fact that a large number of soldiers fighting in the ranks of the Amer- 17) Ibid., pp. 3-6. 18) Op. cit., vol. I, p. 1. 19) Op. cit., vol. II, p. 165. -12- ican army were pressed into service against their will. A constant exchange of mutual re- criminations was kept up between the Amer- icans and the British authorities, that their friends were pressed into the enemy army. Some of these impressed men deserted, some were reconciled to their lot. Accordingly not every soldier shouldered his gun from patriotic motives: he knew he might be driven into the camp of men most hostile to his religion if he failed to render military service. Moreover Mr. Griffin completely overlooks the powerful influence exerted by the Protes- tant churches on the revolutionary movement. True, the leaders of the Revolt were laymen. Yet it is certain that, but for the support of the churches, they would have been doomed to failure. The religious tenets of the Congrega- tionalists, Presbyterians and Baptists were not only a moving force in stirring up the minds of their adherents to hostility against the Cath- olics; but at the same time also an active prin- ciple in bringing about the outbreak of the Revolution. "The dissenting clergy," writes Alice M. Baldwin,20) "and especially the Puri- tan clergy of New England, were among the chief agitators of the Revolution and, after it began, among the most zealous and successful in keeping it alive." Moreover, they had formu- lated and spread the political doctrines of the Revolution. "There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence," declares Miss Baldwin21 ), "which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763." When 20) The New England Clergy and the American Revolution, Durham, N. C., 1928, p. XI. 21) Baldwin, op. cit., p. 170. ~13- the Stamp Act was passed (March, 1765) the Ministers of New England became the leaders in the Revolt and urged all the arguments which nine years later (1774-1776) were ad- vanced against England and began to threaten a possible rupture with England and establish- ment of American Independence. 22 ) If the Stamp Act had not been repealed (February, 1766), the rupture with the English Govern- . ment would have been brought about just as well as ten years later. Accordingly it is a mis- take to assert, as Mr. Griffin does, that "the Quebec Act of 1774 brought on the actual war" or that it was "the last straw." It was only a welcome means used by the leaders to gain their end; the Revolution would have been brought about eventually without its aid. There is, however, a certain aspect of the Quebec Act which Mr. Griffin completely over- looked. True, the fierce attacks of Congress upon the Catholic religion previously referred to, were likewise outbursts of the bigotry and hostility of the rank and file. Yet we believe that the anti-Catholic propaganda would have been far less intense, had not the fear of "Prelacy" lent it added force. "The danger of the establishment of an Anglican Episcopate in America," writes Miss Baldwin23 ), "seems to have caused fear between 1763 and 1775 not only among the New England Ministers but also the laymen as well. John Adams says this apprehension of Episcopacy contributed as much as any other cause to arouse the atten- tion, not only of the inquiring mind, but of the common people, and to urge them to close 22) Op. cit., pp. 90, 101. 23) Op. cit., p. 91. -14 - thinking on the constitutional authori.ty of parliament over the colonies." With the pass- ing of the Quebec Act of 1774 the fear of an Anglican Episcopate and the possible loss of their own independence and prestige became more acute for the New England Ministers and their congregations. 24) This fear accordingly was a very strong motive for the New England Ministers to denounce the Quebec Act. If the British Parliament had established an Anglican bishop at Halifax in 1774, the opposition of the Americans would not have been any less. When Richard Henry Lee of Virginia declared in October, 1774, that "of all the bad acts of Par- liament the Quebec Act is the worst,"25) it is hard to determine which of the two was upper- most in his mind: fear of Popery or fear of Prelacy. . There is yet another aspect to be considered, which likewise extenuates to a certain extent the outbursts of bigotry against the Catholics. The Continental Congress acted as the spokes- man of constitutional government and defended the old rights and privileges which seemed to be at stake. The acts of the British Parliament were . regarded as violations of constitutional rights and the British government as revolu- tionary in its attempt to foist new and unwar- ranted acts upon the people. Therefore the Americans stoutly proclaimed from the begin- ning that their armed resistance was a consti- tutional resistance against unconstitutional acts of the British Parliament. The Americans first took up arms as British subjects to redress the wrongs inflicted by a legal, though an un- 24) Baldwin, op. cit., p. 170. 25) Quoted by Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 14. ~15 ~ . just government. 26 ) No matter how kindly the American Patriots might have felt personally towards the Catholics, they felt bound as "free Protestant" British subjects to denounce an Act of Parliament which introduced a change in the constitutional status of Catholics. Ac- cordingly Mr. Griffin errs in pressing the con- stitutional denunciations of the Catholic re- ligion so as to make them expressions of the personal attitude of the signing members: they primarily disputed the right of the British Parliament to change the constitution and in doing so used language which had reverberated in the assembly room of that body for more than two centuries. Their mistake was: the British people and its government had changed and they would not recognize this fact. Finally Mr. Griffin would have us believe the leaders of the American Revolution were bigoted for bigotry sake. The Americans, however, always displayed a shrewd business spirit. If i the bigotry outcry would further their · ends, they were not slow in making use of it. Study- ing the Addresses of the Continental Congress of 1774 closely, we find that the oppressive tax laws and the restrictions of the rights of the people are always placed in the foreground and the Quebec Act follows last or second last of all grievances. We are told time and again that the Americans were foreed to take up arms to protect their property, their wives and their children. These were the considerations upper- most in their minds. From the very first settle- ment on Massachusetts-Bay business consider- 26) Vossler, Otto. Die amerikanischen Revolutions- ideale in ihrem Verhaltnis zu den europaischen. Munich, 1929, pp. 11-17, 18 note, 33 note. -16- ations weighed more heavily than bigotry against Catholics. As early as 1650 Governor Bradley wrote about the Puritan profiteers of Massachusetts-Bay: "The English merchants traded with the French [Catholics of Canada], both with provisions, powder and shott and so have continued to doe [from 1635] till this day [1650], as they have seen opportunitie for their profite. So as in truth the English them- selves have been the cheefest supporters of the French ... and it is no marvell they still grow and incroach more and more upon the Eng- lish."27) And the Americans of the Revolution were the same selfish business men. For this contention we have the testimony of George Washington himself. On November 28, 1775, Washington wrote to Joseph Reed: "Such a dearth of public spirit and such want of virtue, such stock jobbing and fertility in all the low arts to obtain advantages of one kind or an- . other, I never saw and pray God I may never be witness to again ... Could I have foreseen what I have and am like to experience, no con- sideration upon earth should have induced me to accept this command."28) Yet that com- mercial spirit did not disappear with Independ- ence. The British Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe wrote from York on July 20, 1796, that "land jobbing prevailed in the United States from President Washington, now advertising his lands as the cream of the country, to the low- est adventurer."29) Griffin states correctly30) 27) History of New England, in: Collect. Massa- chusetts Hist. Soc., vol. XXXIII, Boston, 1856, pp. 336- 337. 28) Griffin, op. cit., II., pop. 243-244. 29) Report of Canadian Archives for 1891, Ottawa, 1892, p. 73. 30) Op. cit. , 1., p. 2. -17- that "the oppressive tax laws affected not di- . rectly the great body of the people," yet they were regarded as ever so many infringements upon the sacred rights of the colonists, and in that way "the cause of America was the cause of every virtuous American citizen."31) In view of all these facts we must reject the sweeping statements of Mr. Griffin and his school, and in the interest of historic truth deny that anti-Catholic bigotry was the mov- ing force which brought about the Revolu- tion. Even if the British Parliament had never passed the Quebec Act, the commercial and Puritan interests would have been pow- erful enough to precipitate the American Rev- olution. Attitude o[ the American Catholics Towards Independence In view of the bitter anti-Catholic hostility of the revolting colonists during the early years of the Revolution we should reasonably expect that all Catholics would have opposed the Patriots. All the more, since their religion taught them that resistance to lawful authority is sinful and damnable. On the other hand, when we consider the political disabilities of Catholics in the British colonies, we should marvel to find Catholics supporting the British government. · With the exception of Pennsyl- vania each state carried anti-Catholic laws on its statute-books. In Maryland, where two- thirds of the 22,000 Catholics in the colonies lived, a tax of $100 per month was levied upon 31) Washington's Address to the Inhabitants of Can- ada, Sept. 1775, quoted by Griffin, op. cit., I., p. 128. -18 .",.. all who did not attend public worship on Sun- days in the Episcopal churches.32 ) Placed into so anomalous a position, the Catholics of the American Colonies had no choice but either to resist the lawful authority, join the British forces, or to remain neutral. A number of Catholics, the clergy foremost, chose the latter course in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and the allegi- ance due their country. Even Father John Carroll, who accepted a commission from Congress in 1776, was very circumspect in showing his sympathy for the American Patri- ots. The rest of the American Catholics were divided, serving in both camps. Maryland and Pennsylvania were the only colonies having a Catholic population. The others, with the exception of New York, had either no Catholics or only a few scattered families. The sum total of all Catholics was rather small, about 22,000 out of 3,500,000 to 4,000,000, i. e. not quite one percent of the en- tire population. Even if all Catholics had been staunch supporters of Independence, as Shea and his followers delight in telling us they were, the total number would have formed no more than two percent of the battling Amer- icans. This goes to show that even the united adherence of Catholics in America to the patri- otic cause would not have made a noticeable contribution to the final triumph. Yet despite their small numbers the majority of Catholics in the British colonies south of the St. Lawrence River were in favor of the Revo- lution and later of Independence. The reason for this attitude is to be sought in the anti- 32 ) Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, p. 397. -19- Catholic laws of Maryland, which induced the Catholics of that colony to cast their lot with the revolting colonists. The Catholics of Mary- land hoped Independence would bring about toleration of their religion, and they were not disappointed in their expectations. "When I signed the Declaration of Independence," said Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, "I had in view ... the toleration of all sects professing the Christian Religion ... Reflecting on the dis- abilities, I may truly say of the proscription of the Roman Catholics of Maryland ... that I had much at heart this grand design, founded on mutual charity, the basis of our holy Re- ligion."33 ) The Catholics of Maryland accordingly be- lieved themselves justified in renouncing their allegiance to the British government in view of the existing penal laws directed against their religion, which in so shameful a manner out- raged the sacred rights of freedom of worship. Besides, they feared 'that a victory of the Brit- ish government over the revolting colonists would aggravate their condition still more. The Rev. Daniel Barber expressed well this dread- ful apprehension haunting the minds of Cath- olics during the early years of the Revolution. "And now we find," he wrote, "the new Eng- land people and the Catholics of the Southern States fighting side by side, though stimulated by extreme different motives; the one acting through fear, lest the king of England should succeed in establishing among us the Catholic Religion; the other equally fearful, lest his bit- terness against the Catholic faith should in- 33) Quoted by Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 351, and vol. II, p. 396. -20- crease until they were either destroyed or driv- en to the mountains and waste places of the wilderness."34) The Catholics of Maryland be- lieved they were acting in self-defense: they took. up arms not only in defense of their pro- perty, wives and children, like their Pr.otes- tant compatriots, but also of what was dearer to them, their religion. In ranging themselves under the American standard they were ani- mated more by religious motives than patriotic considerations in the same manner as all good Catholics of this country have always placed religion above patriotism. Mr. Theodore Maynard would have us believe that the Maryland Catholics could not reason- ably have expected to improve t~eir condition by joining the Americans. In view of the bitter anti- Catholic hostility of the overwhelming majority of American Patriots he thinks that "to hope for anything from the new Republic they [the American Catholics] must have been either re- markably sanguine, or possessed of remarkable insight. A few did show great political saga- city; but for the rest the war could have been no more than a desperate gambler's throw. There was not much that they could hope to win ... The benefit they were to derive for their religion was extremely problematical ... a mere guess that the United States would give them more religious liberty than England had accorded."35) He thinks that if they had looked out for improvement of their political and re- ligious condition they would have done better by remaining neutral. Yet the Rev. Daniel Bar- ber, who lived through those stirring times, had 34) Quoted by Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 34. 35) The. American M e1'C1wy, March, 1933, pp. 353-354. -21- a clearer insight into the souls of those Mary- land Catholics battling for the Americans than the modern historian who wishes us to believe they had no weightier motive for espousing the American cause than the perception of agreement between the political principles of the Declaration of Independence and Cath- olic philosophy. The Maryland Catholics had everything to fear from a British victory' and much to gain from American Independence. Perhaps they discerned a difference between the anti-Catholic bigotry of the Anglicans of Mary- land, rooted in religious antipathy, and the hos- tility of the New England Patriots based on constitutional grounds. They were induced the more readily to cast their lot with the revolting Americans, when they saw how the latter were wearing out their Popish bigotry in the attempt to win over the Canadian Catholics; the solemn pledges made by the Continental Congress to the Canadian Catholics were ever so many pledges made to themselves, professing the . same Faith as the Canadians. Therefore when they joined the ranks of the Americans their hope for betterment of their condition rested upon something more tangible than a sanguine expectation or a mere guess, and their espousal of the American cause was "more than a des- perate gambler's throw." As a matter of fact, the once so violently anti-Catholic Patriots stu- diously avoided hurting the feelings of Cath- olics. On the British side it was otherwise. On August 3, 1777, the British general St. Leger issued a proclamation in which he de- nounced the Americans as having perpetrated "persecution and torture, unprecedented in the inquisitions of the Roman church"; and yet -22- numbers of Catholic soldiers were serving in his army.36) No American general would have dared to use such insulting language in 1777. The Americans had promised the Catholics freedom of worship, and eventually kept their promise. The conditions, however, of the Catholics of Pennsylvania were different from those of Ma- ryland. That colony was the only common- wealth which recognized, at least to a certain extent, the rights of Catholics by law. Probab- ly the largest number of Loyalists lived · in Pennsylvania, and this loyalist preponderance reacted powerfully upon the attitude of the Catholics of that state. Philadelphia had the largest Catholic population of all the cities in the thirteen colonies. Naturally Philadelphia was to a great extent loyalistic. The Catholics of Pennsylvania were almost equally divided in their political affiliations, the number of Loyalists preponderating somewhat. Even families were divided, as for instance the Cauffman family of Philadelphia, whose son served in the American navy, while the father remained loyal to England.37 ) The Cath- olic Loyalists were sometimes of high rank or social standing. In a situation like this the Catholic clergy were forced to remain neutral, despite their personal sympathies. "There is no known record of their doing or saying any- thing in favor of the patriotic cause."38) Yet personally the Jesuits in Philadelphia and other places of Pennsylvania must have entertained sympathies for the Americans like their breth- 36) Quoted by Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, p. 151. · 37) Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 215-216. 38) Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, p. 169. -23- ren, the Jesuits of Canada, who with their Indian charges favored the revolting colonists and assisted them in many ways, so that the British General Haldimand wrote on June 20, 1783, to Lord North: "The Jesuits have sided with the rebels."39) During the British occupation of Phila- delphia the British succeeded in raising a regi- ment of Catholic Loyalists, which in May, 1778, counted 180 men. Another regiment of Volun- teers of Ireland was formed in the same city about the same time, which numbered abou 500 men, more than 380 of whom were desert- ers from Washington's army at Valley Forge. Naturally the majority of these Irish volun teers in British service were Catholics. 40) Be sides these soldiers a great number of promi nent Catholics of Philadelphia and Pennsyl vania were active in furthering the Britis cause.41 ) The political division of the Catholics 0 Pennsylvania should not surprise us in the least. They had no compelling reasons, as had the Catholics of Maryland, for espousing the American cause; they were recognized by law and enjoyed a legal status, reason enough to remain loyal to England. They had been blessed with peace and liberty for many a year and were grateful to the British government which had granted them these privileges. When finally the revolting colonists began to revile their religion and attack their Faith in a vi- cious manner, such anti-Catholic hostility was not at all calculated to win them over to the 39) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 142. 40) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 325-352. 41) See the long list in Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 170-182. -24- American side. Yet apart from this religious aspect, many Catholics were bound to the Brit- ish cause by personal and social influences, subject to British officials or moved by mo- tives of self-interest to side with England. Many were also kept loyal by their political be- lief or the teaching of their religion that re- sistance to lawful authority is sinful. Reviewing the condition of the Catholics of Pennsylvania in its true light we must rather marvel that so many Catholics allied themselves with those who hated their religion and re- mained loyal to them despite ill usage at their hands and deep-seated bigotry. We can readily understand why so many Catholics of Penn- sylvania continued in their adherence to Eng- land, but it is difficult to discover the reasons why, on the other hand, a great number sup- ported the Americans. Some surely were pressed into service, and they can easily be ex- cused. How the rest justified their disloyalty to lawful authority in the court of their private conscience remains largely a matter of con- jecture. Certainly our hyper-patriotic histories would brand every Loyalist as meriting eternal execration and hold up every Patriot as worthy of all praise. Yet it is surely no disgrace but a glory that those Catholic Loyalists preferred to obey the lawful authority rather than the anti -Catholic "Rebels." 42) The Catholics of Pennsylvania were sur- passed in their loyalty to England by the Cath- olic Scotch Highlanders settled in the Mohawk Valley in Upper New York State. During the I years 1773 to 1775 a large number of Scotch 42 ) Compare Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 167-169, I, pp. 326-327, 330. -~5- Highlanders came to America to make their abode in the section of undeveloped Western New York lying in Tryon County west of Al- bany. The greater number of these immi- grants were 'Catholics, the rest Presbyterians Yet, though divided in their Faith, they united against the revolting Americans despite the "No Popery" cry of the Patriots of New York. On May 18, 1776, the first exodus took place when 130 Highlanders and 120 Loyalists of other nationalities left their homes to emigrate into Canada, where they settled and allied themselves with the British. The following year, early in May, 1777, another body of Cath- olic Highlanders departed to Canada, taking with them a number of Loyalist Germans from the Mohawk Valley. These Catholic Highlanders remained faith- ful to England throughout. They resisted to the last man all endeavors of the Americans to win them over. They did not emigrate to Can- ada, as Shea and his disciples write, under pres- sure of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the Patri- ots of New York, but in order to avoid being dragooned by the Americans into service against England and to be able to fight on the British side. They rendered good service to England as soldiers of the British regiment of the Royal Greens. The Highlanders remaining in the Mohawk Valley after 1777 continued to refuse stoutly, as they had done before, to per- form military duty for the Americans; they persistently remained neutral. The reason for this unanimous loyalty to England was the oath these men had taken after the battle of Culloden, April 27, 1746, when 5,000 Highlanders were completely rout- -26- ed by 12,000 English soldiers. The Scotch Catholic Highlanders of New York acted in the same manner as did the Presbyterian Scotch Highlanders of North Carolina: they refused to violate an oath not to take up arms against the British government. Congress sent two presbyterian ministers to win the Protestant Highlanders of North Carolina to the American caUse; they assured them their oath was not binding because it was taken under compulsion. Yet all pleading, preaching and exhorting failed to move them. Not even the appeal to their anti-Catholic sentiments effected a change. No matter how confidently the ministers assured them the King had broken his coronation oath, had turned Roman Catholic, was intent upon establishing the Catholic religion throughout America and enslaving his Protestant subjects, the North Carolina Presbyterian Highlanders would not be swayed, but, as the "Regulators", rendered valuable services in the South to their conquerors and former enemies. 43) The ten other colonies either had no Catholic inhabitants or so few as to form a negligible quantity. Yet beyond the frontiers of the thirteen colonies we find Catholic settle- ments in the Middle West which in 1763 had passed under British rule. The inhabitants of these places were French Canadians and, as a matter of course, in sympathy with the Americans. They were too far removed from the theatre of war to be affected by the struggle going on in the East. However, in 1778 George Rogers Clark set out from Louisville, Ky., to 43) Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 135-153; Shea, Hist. of the Cath. Church in the U. S., vol. II. New York, 1888, pp. 76, 142-143. -27- conquer that vast country for the United Sta The Catholic settlers of Vincennes, Ind., ~ kaskia, Ill., and Cahokia, Ill., surrendered ~ot. untarily to the Americans. This occupation b) an American force later proved very importau~ since it gave the United States a claim to the vast region stretching from the Alleghaniea west to the Mississippi, and eventually the raU fication of this claim in the treaty of p~ of 1783. The British post of Detroit, Mich., was chief_ ly settled by Catholic Canadians. In the Fall of 1776 these inhabitants stoutly refused to oppose the Americans and remained neutral in the conflict between the British and Americana for possession of the Northwest Territory.H) Detroit was captured in February 1779 by the Americans but they could not hold it. Through_ out the Revolution Detroit was headquarters of the British forces in the Northwest, and the point from which many Indian expeditions were sent out to ravage the American settle- ments on the frontiers. A noted Loyalist of the Northwest was the Catholic Canadian Charles de Langlade of Green Bay, Wis., who took part in 99 battles and skirmishes against the Amer- icans.45 ) In the extreme Southeast there were Cath- olic settlements in the town and district of Mo- bile, Ala. The settlers were French Creoles, who were too far removed from the battle- ground to be able to express effectively thei sympathy for the Americans. British poss sion of this territory was never challenged dur ing the Revolution. In British East and Wes 44) Griffin, op. cit., vol. II, p. 184. 45) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 64, vol. II, pp. 183-4. -28- t Florida almost all Catholics had left the coun- trY' when the British occupied these states 'n 1763. 1 As we observe from this survey, the Cath- lies living in the vast territory extending from fne Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi and from the borders of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico were influenced by varied motives in their atti- tude for or agai~st Indepe~dence.. Religi?us, political and raCIal tendenCIes umted varIOUS bodies of Catholics under the American flag while other considerations caused large bodies of Catholics to remain in the British camp. The French settlers of the West were more united in their sympathy towards the Ameri- cans than the English and German settlers of the East. Yet Mr. Maynard wishes us to be- lieve that there was one uniformly compelling motive which induced the Catholics to join the American Patriots in a body, namely "the per- ception that the political principles of the Declaration of Independence were in accord- ance with Catholic Philosophy."46) It is strange the Catholics themselves did not know of any such accordance. They were simple, law-abiding people with little or no education, who never pursued studies in political philoso- phy that might have qualified them to detect "the identity with their own of the principles of the Revolution."47) Certainly there were "a few exceptions," declares Mr. Maynard, but almost all "instinctively saw that the Ameri- can cause was supported by Catholic teach- ing."48 ) Yet in the interest of historic truth 46) The Ame?'ican Me?'cu?'y, March 1933, New York, p. 355. 47) Maynard, op. cit., p. 357. 48) Maynard, op. cit., p. 359. -29- we must deny that those Catholics were en dowed with such wonderful intuition. No con- t~mporary docum~nt ma~es the faintest allu: SlOn to such phIlosophlCal perception. The Catholics joining the American ranks had other problems to solve. Their catechism taught them that lawful authority must be obeyed. Disloyalty to England was to each a personal case of conscience which had to be settled in conformity with the dictates of right reason. Accordingly resistance to England was to each Catholic who joined the Americans a serious matter, to be judged according to the teaching of Catholic moral theology and not of "Catholic philosophy." Mr. Maynard's contention that the Catholics "as a body were for the American cause" and "did more than their share in the securing of American liberties"49) is just as baseless as the still more exaggerated claims put forth by John Gilmary Shea. Canadian Catholics and the Declaration of Independence When the contest between the British gov- ernment and the American colonies began to grow serious the leaders of the Revolt en- deavored to enlist the sympathies of "all America" and the people of Great Britain in Europe. For that purpose the Continental Congress forwarded a Memorial and an Ad- dress to the people of Great Britain (October 20 and 21, 1774), a Memorial to the inhabitants of the British colonies of America (October 21, 1774), a Letter to the colonies of St. John's 49) op. cit., pp. 354, 357. - 30- (River), Nova Scotia, Georgia, East and West Florida (October 22, 1774), an Address to the 'uhabitants of Quebec (October 26, 1774), and lastly a Petition to King George III. (October 26, 1774). Hostilities fi,nally commenced at Lex:ington, Mass., on AprIl 18, 1775, and three weeks later, on May 10, 1775, the Continental Congress convened again after an adjournment of more than six months. Once more urgent appeals to the various parties were sent out by Congress, entreating them to "unite with the Americans in defense of common liberty." First came a Letter to the oppressed inhabi- tants of Canada (May 29, 1775), then an Ad- dress to the inhabitants of Great Britain (June 27 1775), an Address to the people of Ireland, a Letter to the inhabitants of Jamaica, an Ad- dress to the people of Nova Scotia, and a second Petition to the King. Yet the "free Protestant colonies," as the re- volting Americans delighted to call themselves, were not accorded a response from the other Protestant colonies of British America and the Protestant people of England. The expected union of "all America" and the English people against the "wicked British Ministry" would o not materialize. N ova Scotia, the nearest 1- Protestant colony, opened her ports to welcome 1 the ships carrying the families of Loyalists ,n who left the Thirteen Colonies to settle in that ~1 British territory. When the resolutions of the ~- Continental Congress and its Addresses were er presented to the legislature of Nova Scotia, ts nobody paid attention to them. As early as 1, October 17, 1775, two regiments were raised 's in Nova Scotia to fight the Americans, and various societies of Loyalists formed to aid -31- the British government. 50) When in 1777 Scotch Presbyterian Colonel John Allan the Catholic Indians of Maine and New wick, invaded Nova Scotia to conquer it Americans, only five hundred men were to secure the conquest, but these men not forthcoming; the inhabitants had and urged them to attempt the invasion the critical time they would not come to aid. If the American invaders could have Nova Scotia in 1777, a new state would been formed, which would have . extensive territory now covered by inces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia Breton, and as a result all Eastern would now be part of the United We have seen that more than a million tant inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies r. fused to side with the Americans and evea stoutly opposed them. Jamaica, the southern_ most colony, refused to go further than to write an anti-Catholic Memorial to the British government. 52) The Protestant people of EDt- land turned a deaf ear to the pleadings of their Protestant brethren across the ocean. Thus the "free Protestant colonies" of America did not receive any encouragement from their co. religionists but met everywhere with indiffer- ence or hostility. Whatever response they re- ceived came from Catholics: Canadians, Indi- ans and Irishmen. Naturally this speedily disabused the leaders of the Revolt 50) Report on the Canadian Archives for the 1894, Ottawa, Ont., pp. 356, 357, 359, 368, 369. 51) Kidder, Frederic. Revolutionary Operations Maine and Nova Scotia, Albany, 1867, p. 82, quoted Griffin, op. cit., vol. II; p. 126. 52) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 24. -32- · bigotrY. It was the first time that l'ais- Weir be howl of "No-Popery" was found to jog t done more harm than good to the "free b~V~ tant" colonists. Naturally the cry died pro es and the w~oing of. the "image-worship- d?\~, Papists qUIetly set m. . pJlfhe Catholic settlers of Canada had been a ce of disquiet and alarm to the English sou~ists south of the St. Lawrence River from colo very first years of . their establishment in tile t northern region. As early as 1613 they tIl\ed to Canada to destroy the feeble settle- rus nts of the Catholic Frenchmen. They would IIlet rest till all of Canada was conquered in ~~60 Congress states in its resolutions of october 14, 1774, that "by the assistance of blood and treasure of the British colonies Can- da was conquered .from .France,"53) and i~ .its Memorial to the mhabItants of the Bl'lbsh colonies of October 2.1, 1774, boasts "that the colonies were establIshed and generally de- fended themselves without the least assistance from Great Britain."54) Hence the bitterness of heart when they observed a friendly attitude on the part of the government towards those catholics. All their sacrifices in lives and money seemed wasted; for over a century they had been scheming, using fair means and foul, to exterminate Popery or at least to check it, and in the end found that the government at- tempted to "establish Popery" by law where it hitherto had only tolerated that religion. As usual in heated disputes, one side of the con- testants was laboring under a gross misconcep- tion. The Quebec Act did not grant more than 53) Journal of Congress, vol. I, Philadelphia, 1800, p. 30. 54) Ibid., p. 48. -33- the right to tithes and restoration French laws. This was very little as later events proved, the Church to fight for many decades t<;> secure a status and some sort of Law." _ Yet the revolting colonists had interpretation of the Quebec Act; the King and the government had Popery in Canada to secure the (>(\_.(\T\."~_L! the Canadian Catholics for the purpose of awing and oppressing the discontented lish colonies. Congress gave expression fear that, "by the influence of civil <,4"U~I'''''' and ancient prejudices, the u· ULC"'''-'J.LCl.Jllll' Canada would be "disposed to act with 4!"VC'It.U1II~. against the free Protestant colonies, a wicked ministry shall chuse so to them"55); that "by being disunited frODl (Americans), detached from our interests, civil as well as religious prejudices, that their (Canadians) numbers daily swelling Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by devotion to administration, so friendly to religion, they (Canadians) might be(!OIrle midable to us, and on occasion, be fit ments, in the hands of power, to reduce ancient, free Protestant colonies to the state of slavery with themselves; ... and extremely dangerous to our liberty and we cannot forbear complaining of it, as to British America"56 ) ; that "the u· UJ.<.UJ.IIiCIiIt .. (of Canada), deprived of liberty, and artf'nlhl 55) Memorial to the People of Great J.HJlocUl1. 20" 1774, in: Journal, vol. I, Philadelphia 56) Address to the People of Great Britain, 21, 1774, in: Journal, vol. I, Philadelphia, 1800, p. 4L -34- ked against those of another religion, will prov~oper instrument~ for assisting in the op- b8 pl'on of such as dIffer from them in modes press~ernlllent and faith."57) Laboring under of rfear Congress appealed to the Catholic Ca- th!!. nS '''not to suffer yourselves to be in- na.d1fed 'or intimidated by infamous ministers, "eI1 r as to become the instruments of their SO fty and despotism."58) cr~ t these fears of the Americans eventually eed groundless; the Catholic Canadians re- P!'~~d all attempts of the British government }; inveigle them so far as to become instru- o ts" "in the hands of power to reduce the ~e~ Protestant colonies to a state of slavery," fl~i1e the Protestant countrymen of the British II' lonies of North America, of whom it was be- e.o ved "that they, the defenders of true re- I ~e ion and the asserters of the rights of man- ~frld 'will not take part against their affection- te Protestant brethren in the colonies,"59) be- ~ame fit instruments "to act with hostility" against them. Canada, or rather the Province of Quebec, in 1774, when the struggle with England be- gan had a population of 150,000 inhabitants, all ~f whom were Catholics with the exception of 360 Anglicans. As early as October 26, 1774, Congress invited the Catholic Canadians "to unite with us in one social compact and 57) Memorial to the ~nhabitants of the Bri.tish Co~o­ nies, October 21, 1774, m: Journal, vol. I, Philadelphla, 1800, p. 51. 58 ) Address to the Inhabitants of Quebec, October 26,1774, in: Journal, vol. I, Philadelphia, 180'0, p. 61. 59) Memorial to the Inhabitants of the British Colo- nies, Oct. 21, 1774, op. cit., p. 52 -35-- send delegates to the Continental Congress Philadelphia."60) The Canadians showed sympathy with the Americans already at time, although the invitation referred to, send delegates, was not acted upon. in 1775, a breach with England seemed able, the leaders of the Revolt sent John to Canada to ascertain the sentiment of Canadians regarding the American cause to establish a reliable channel of dence with the friends of the Americans in country. Brown set out in February 1775 reported from Montreal on March 29, 1775, vising the capture of Ticonderoga. On 8th following, his friends wrote from that "the bulk of the people wish your can) cause well but dare not stir a help you .... They may mutter and swear, must obey."61) On May 18, 1775, Brown in Philadelphia to report to the Continental Congress-"that a design is formed by the Britl ish Ministry of making a cruel invasion, fro~ the Province of Quebec, upon these colonies, fOf the purpose of destroying our lives and liber- ties, and some steps have actually been tak~ to carry the said design into execution."62) To thwart these evil designs of the govern. ment, Congress on May 29, 1775, issued a Let. ter to the Oppressed Inhabitants of Canada, iIl!o viting them again "to join with us in resolving to be free, and in rej ecting the fetters of slav- ery," and "uniting with us in the defense of our 60) Address to the Inhabitants of Quebec, Oct. 26, 1774, op. cit., p. 61. 61) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 41, 69. 62) Journal of Congress, vol. II, Washington, 1906, p. 56. -36- ornrnon liberty."63 ) Congress continues in the c arne letter: "We are informed you have al- s eady been called upon to waste your lives in r contest with us .... We can never believe fhat the present race of Canadians are so de- generated as to possess neither the spirit, the gallantry, nor the courage of their . ances- tors . ... We, for our part, are determmed to Jive free, or not at all." 64 ) Yet despite the assurance of Congress given to the Canadians in the letter of May 29, 1775, "that these colonies will pursue no measures whatever, but such as friendship and a regard for our mutual safety and interest may sug- gest," the Americans endeavored to intimidate the Canadians. As early as April 6, 1775, the General and Governor of Canada reported from Quebec to Minister Dartmouth in London, "deputies from Massachusetts threaten that if the Canadians do not join them, 50,000 men from New England will lay waste Canada with fire and sword."65 ) To check these threats of violence Congress deemed it expedient under the circumstances to issue a disclaimer, and accordingly, on June 1, 1775, resolved "that no expedition or excursion ought to be undertaken or made, by any colony, or body of colonies, against or into Canada, that the above resolve be translated into the French language, and transmitted to the inhabitants of Canada."66) However, a violent proclamation of Governor 63) Journal of Congress, vol. I, Philadelphia, 1800, pp. 100-102 ; vol. II, Washington, 1905, pp. 68-70. 64) Journal, vol. I, p. 101; vol. II, Washington, 1905, p. 69. 65) Report of Canadian Archives for 1890, Ottawa, p. 58. 66) Journal, vol. I, Philadelphia, 1800, p. 104. -37- ( 'Carleton of Canada, denouncing the American as traitors and inciting the Canadian IndianS against them, changed the mind of the merns bers ~f Congress and led to the adoption of ag: gresslVe measures. Preliminary to an invasion of Canada Con g,ress issued a Declaration on J'fly 6, 1775, se~ tmg forth that they had "receIved certain in- telligence that General Carleton is instigating the people and the Indians to fall upon us" Then John Brown was sent with four men into Canada to obtain intelligence in regard to the military preparations made there by the Brit- ish and the feelings of the people towards the Americans. From July 24 to August 10, 1775 Brown scouted in Canada, found the peopl~ favorably affected towards the Americans, and was assured by them that it was their wish to see an American army take possession of Can- ada, and that they would supply it with every- thing in their power, as soon as it came. The Catholic Indians expressed the same determi- nation. The British army at that time had no more than about 700 soldiers in Canada, 0 whom nearly 300 were stationed at St. John's New Brunswick, about 50 at Quebec, while th rest were scattered at different posts. Accord- ingly everything seemed favorable for the con- templated invasion. John Brown · counselled immediate advance. The American army began the advance from Ticonderoga under General Montgomery. On September 15, 1775, a detachment of 134 men crossed the border with letters to the Ca nadians, informing them that the invading army had no other design than to capture the British garrisons; their country, their liberties -38- d religion would not be touched. The irivad- ~ng army consisted of about 1100 men. St. In hn's was first taken on November 3, 1775, Jo d ten days later Montreal surrendered. By ~ovember 18, 1775, Quebec was besieged and he whole Province of Canada was in the hands t f the Americans with the exception of the lone oM of Quebec. Seven months later the invad- ing army was back in the States and all Canada waS lost. The r apid advance into Canada was only pos- sible because of the cooperation of the Ca- nadian people. The information given by John Brown was found to be correct. Three months before the American invasion, on June 7, 1775, General Carleton wrote from Quebec to Min- ister Dartmouth: "Within the last few days the Canadians and Indians are returning to their senses ; the gentry and clergy have been very useful, but both have lost much of their influ- ence." 67) This conversion of the Canadian peasantry to the British cause was the effect of Bishop Briand's mandate issued in favor of the British government on May 22, 1775. Yet this loyal sentiment was not to last long. The British general Thomas Gage reported from Boston on August 20, 1775: "I hear from General Carleton that the Canadians are not so ready for war as we hoped, and some of the Indian tribes in that country copy them. The Canadians have enjoyed too much quiet and good living since under our Government, and much pains too have been taken both to terrify them and poison their minds."68) Yet the Ca- 67) Report of Canadian Archives for 1890, Ottawa, p. 60. 68 ) Report of Canadian Archives for 1904, Ottawa, p. 358. -39- nadians had such powerful motives for sidin witp. the Americ~ns tp.at. the latter could havg easIly spared theIr pams m endeavoring to tere rify them and poison their minds. " When the Americans finally invaded Canad in September 1775, the great body of the CaB. nadians, the clergy and gentry and part of th~ burghers alone excepted, welcomed the invad ing army, aided them by the ready sale of sup plies, cooperated in various other ways and finally joined their ranks. The British official Cramahe reported from Quebec on September 21, 1775, to Dartmouth: "All means have failed to bring the Canadian peasantry to a sense 0 duty. The gentry, clergy and most of the Bourgeoisie have shown the greatest zeal an~ have exerted themselves to reclaim their in- fatuated countrymen," but without any suc cess.69 ) Three weeks later, on October 12 1775, Guy Johnson, British Indian agent, wrote from Montreal to Dartmouth: "On the 6th of September the Rebel army attacked St. John'. and were repulsed by the Indians. This wa the critical time for striking such a blow as would have freed the country of these invader and greatly contributed to assist Genera Gage's operations, but such was the infatu ation of the Canadians that they could not wit all General Governor Carleton's endeavors b prevailed upon, even to defend their coun try .... The Americans scattered their partie through the country, some of whom came with in sight of Montreal, to draw in the Canadian to join them, and numbers did SO."70) Anothe 69) Report of Canadian Archives for 1890, Ottawa p. 63. 70) Report of Canadian Archives for 1904, p. 346. -40- British report of the same date said: "The ebels overr.at; all the countr;y- and were in ~anY places J omed by the perfidIOus Canadians. From September 27, 1775, to October 12, 1775, verY art and means was made to assemble the canadians and several came in, were clothed and armed and afterwards joined the enemy."71) On November 20, 1775, Lt. Col. Allan McLean wrote from besieged Quebec to London: "What contributed most to the loss of the Country, the Town of Quebec being at this moment the only spot of it that remains subject to His Majesty's obedience, is the treachery and villany of the Canadians, for it is a certain fact that 2,000 of those fellows never could have done us any mischief, had they not been joined by the Canadians."72) At this juncture the fears of William Howe, expressed in a letter addressed from Boston to the British Secretary of State on December 3, 1775, were well ground- ed: "There is so much reason to fear that, by a general defection of the Canadians, the whole Province of Quebec will fall into the hands of the Rebels. "73) The invading American soldiers were treated most hospitably by the Canadian peasants. "The urbanity of the peasants," wrote Major HenrY Livingston, of the Third New York Regiment, "is very singular. The meanest of our soldiers that entered one of the houses of the village of Laprairie, October 19, 1775, was instantly regaled with a large bowl of bread and milk or any other eatables their houses af- forded, and although our soldiers seldom made 71) Ibid., p. 35l. 72) Ibid., pp. 385-386. 73) Ibid., p. 355. -41- them any gratuities, their kindness was still unremitted."74) Another soldier wrote from the same place on November 3, 1775: "More hospitable people I never saw; you cannot enter into a peasant's house at any time of day bu they set a loaf of bread and a pan of milk be. fore yoU."75) Before the invasion over 300 Canadians had joined the ranks of the Ameri· can army in New York State, and during the invasion aided greatly in the capture of points along the St. Lawrence River. Nearly 500 other Canadians were enlisted in the country. More than 200 Canadian soldiers withdrew with the Americans on June 17, 1776, doing service in the American army during the re· mainder of the war.76 ) These Catholic Ca· nadians were the first foreign soldiers in the American army. The feeling of good will evidenced by these facts was destroyed within a short time by the conduct of the Americans and above all by the failure of their expedition. The causes which brought about this change are described by th American Colonel Moses Hazen in a letter writ ten from Canada to General Schuyler on Apri 1, 1776. "You are not unacquainted with th friendly disposition of the Canadians whe General Montgomery first penetrated into th country," he wrote. "The ready assistanc which they gave on all occasions, by men, carri ages and provisions, was most remarkable ... But his unfortunate fate [he was killed in th assault on Quebec on December 31, 1775], add ed to other incidents, has caused such a chang 74) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 110-111. 75) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, p. 112. 76) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 114-126. -42- in their disposition that we are no more to look upon them as friends ... I think the clergy nave been neglected, perhaps in some instances ill used. Be that as it may, they are unani- mously against our cause, and I have too much reason to fear ... are now plotting our destruc- tion. The peasantry in general have been ill used. They have, in some instances, been dragooned, at the point of the bayonet, to furnish wood for the garrison at lower rates than the current price, also carriages and many other articles thus furnished. Certificates given were not legible, with only half a signature and of conse- quence rejected by the quarter master gen- eral ... , and in a more material point, they have not seen a sufficient force in the country to protect them."77) General Schuyler wrote to Washington from Fort George on April 27, 1776: "The licentiousness of our troops both in Canada and in this quarter is not easily to be described nor have all my efforts been able to put a stop to the scandalous extremes."78) While the American campaign in Canada took such an adverse turn, Congress determined to retrieve the precarious situation by sending a diplomatic mission into that country. On February 15, 1776, Congress resolved to send three commissioners to Canada and elected as one of them the Catholic gentleman Charles Carroll of Carrollton, although the latter was not then a member of Congress. Up to that time the leaders of the Revolt had completely ig- nored the Catholics living in the colonies; they were numerically and socially so insignificant that the Americans could well afford to over- 77 ) Griffin, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 119-120, 221, 222. 78 ) L. c. p. 120. -43- look them; the Revolution was a movement and the Catholics were not W8LUt'edJl Therefore the Address of Congress to the habitants of the British colonies, issued October 21, 1774, is directed to "the ""JL"U.Ut:Jt'I. of true religion" and designed to them not to "take part against their ate Protestant brethren." However, in of the distress of the American soldiers in ada, Congress thought its Catholic men might be of service also. And for reason Congress selected a Catholic to go Canada with two Protestants to endeavor secure the assistance of the Catholic ,,-,