This primary source paper was the final paper for my Hist 323 Early Charleston history course.  This paper, required to be based upon a historical archive item (in this case England's papers) required the most extensive research of my undergraduate courses.  Considering I was the only non-History major in a senior-level course, I was surprised that I got an A on this paper, as well as an A for the course overall.

---

Introduction

I:     Bishop John England and John Forsyth

            Who was John England?

            Who was John Forsyth?

II:    The Historical Background of England’s Letters

Letters from Pope Gregory and Bishop England

Seeking a Middle Ground for Catholics in the South

III:   John England’s Letters

Slave Trading versus Domestic Slavery

            Respecting Domestic Slavery

            England’s Standards for the Ethical treatment of Slaves

            Questioning the British commitment to abolition

IV:  Conclusion

V:    Bibiography

---

INTRODUCTION

Charleston underwent major conflicts over the issue of slavery in the years leading up to secession of the State of South Carolina from the United States and the Civil War that followed.  While secession and armed conflict point to the existence of strong and divergent opinions over slavery within the nation as a whole, it can lead one to believe that the people of Charleston and South Carolina were mostly of one opinion, and much of the rest of the nation was of another.  In many ways, this was not the case.  The great debate over the issue of slavery was also a debate that took place within Charleston, with many different opinions being heard on the subject.

            An example of the internal debate in Charleston over slavery comes from a collection of letters written by John England, the Irish-born Catholic Bishop of Charleston, to United States Secretary of State John Forsyth.  While some may have expected the city’s religious leaders to sit on the sidelines of this debate and tend to spiritual matters, this would not be the case with John England.  To those who read the letters, as well as develop an understanding the historical and cultural context in which the letters were written, it becomes clear that the outspoken leader of the city’s Catholics had much to say about this controversial issue.

I.  BISHOP JOHN ENGLAND AND JOHN FORSYTH

Who was John England?

            Catholicism had only a token presence in the entire South.  Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians made up ninety-four percent of churches in the entire South. [1]   Southern Catholics had long been a part of the Diocese of Baltimore, but the Church had finally recognized the need to establish stronger authority in the South, and created the Diocese of Charleston.  The Diocese claimed jurisdiction over approximately twelve thousand Catholics in both Carolinas and Georgia, many of whom were poor immigrants from Ireland, John England’s homeland, or impoverished plantation owners who had escaped the bloody slave rebellion which had transformed Santo Domingo into the black-ruled nation of Haiti.  It was into this pioneering “wilderness” that the Catholic Church sent John England when it appointed him the first Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston. [2]

            Born in Cork, Ireland in 1786, England had grown up a political radical, agitating against the British rule of his homeland.  Through a special dispensation from the Church, England had been ordained to the priesthood at the age of twenty-two in 1809.  England used the pulpit and his position to rally his fellow Irishmen to assert their rights and defy British rule over their nation.  In an effort by the Church to curtail his political activism, he was made parish priest of Bandon, Ireland.  In the fall of 1820, when England was appointed to be the new Bishop of Charleston, it was the fulfillment of his life-long dream to come to America. [3]

He arrived in Charleston on December 30, 1820 to assume his new duties, joined by his sister, Joanna England, and Denis Corkery, a young priest. [4]   Upon arriving in America, he jumped into the duties of Bishop with great zeal.  In addition to preaching to the small and far-flung Catholic population across the three-state diocese, he also made numerous speaking appearances to both Catholic and non-Catholic audiences across South Carolina, even in Protestant churches. [5]   England also met with President Monroe and then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to discuss the role of Catholics in the fledgling nation.  To improve communication among American Catholics, he founded The United States Catholic Miscellany, the nation’s first Catholic newspaper, which debuted on June 5, 1822.  In the early years of the Miscellany, England and his sister wrote and edited much of the newspaper. [6]

On Christmas Day, 1825, England visited Washington, D.C., and preached at the city’s St. Patrick’s Church.  England used his sermon to respond to past remarks made against Catholics by President John Quincy Adams.  His sermon generated much discussion in the nation’s capital and led to an invitation to speak before the Congress of the United States.  On January 8, 1826, to packed galleries, England became the first Catholic priest to address the Congress. [7]

            While his strong defense of slavery in the letters to Forsyth may have created the impression that England was prejudiced towards whites, in reality, England was well-known for his generosity towards the city’s blacks.  In 1830, he established a convent of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy in Charleston for the purpose of providing education and religious instruction to free and slave black girls in the diocese.  He also held an early Mass in the diocese’s cathedral every Sunday for black parishioners, as one of the two services he preached on Sunday.  If unable to deliver both sermons, he would forgo the service for the white audiences. [8]

Even though England’s position on domestic slavery supported that held by the city’s slave society, this position was not widely recognized.  On the night of July 29, 1835, several hundred rioters assembled after a steamer brought a mail delivery for the Charleston Post Office.  Amongst the mail, the delivery included copies of several anti-slavery newspapers, including the Anti-Slavery Record, the Emancipator, and the Slaves’ Friend.  First, the mob had stormed the post office and burned the newspapers, and then they proceeded to the city’s Catholic seminary, seeking to lynch England, destroy the cathedral, and demolish the school for black girls.  Ironically, England, who had approved of the mob’s destruction of the papers, was forced to seek the protection of the city militia from the mob.  In a compromise with city leaders and other denominations, who were afraid the example set by the mob’s confrontation with England would serve as inspiration for violence against other churches, to soothe tensions in the city, England agreed to close the black girls’ school.  In return, the other churches would close theirs until tempers cooled. [9]

Who was John Forsyth?

            John Forsyth was a veteran politician from Georgia.  A native of Virginia, graduate of Princeton, his political career began when the young lawyer from Augusta was elected the state’s Attorney General in 1808.  Six years later, he ascended to the U.S. House of Representatives, then to the Senate.  He also served as Minister to Spain for four years, then back to the House, where aside from a two year term as Georgia’s Governor, he remained until President Andrew Jackson appointed him Secretary of State in 1834.  Forsyth would hold this office until his death in 1841. [10]

            It was as Governor of Georgia, located in England’s diocesan jurisdiction, that Forsyth first made England’s acquaintance, meeting him at the former state capital of Milledgeville.  From reading his letters, it is clear the two knew each other and that England had a strong level of respect for the former Governor:

“For you personally I have high regard; for your public conduct in many places of trust and honor, I have great respect; the administration in which you hold so prominent a place, has my full confidence; and did I take an active part in politics, it should have my feeble aid.” [11]

II.   THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ENGLAND’S “LETTERS”

Letters from Pope Gregory and Bishop England

The origins of England’s letters began with an Apostolic letter from Pope Gregory XVI on “The Slave Trade.” The Papal letter was published in the March 14, 1840 edition of the Miscellany.  Abolitionists in the northern states took Pope Gregory’s letter to heart in their crusade against slavery.  The letter made its way into numerous anti-slavery publications of the time and became the subject of great scorn by Southern planters and others who supported slavery. [12]

Writing in the Miscellany to express his views of the Pope’s letter, England argued a middle ground on the issue of slavery, agreeing with the history of cruelty in slave trade committed by the Spanish and Portuguese traders, and defending the treatment of Southern slaves as “equally as good as that of any laboring population in Christendom”.  England argued that the “intermeddling of Northern Abolitionists has tended to retard the generous and humane efforts which the Southern proprietors were spontaneously making for the increase of comforts and the ameliorations of the moral condition of the slave”.  He closed his letter with a stinging attack upon the abolitionists:

“Whatever our wishes respecting slavery may be, we are firmly of the opinion that in all the South there is less cruelty and injustice committed by his owner than there is committed by the American Abolitionists against the American slave owner.” [13]

Several months later, John Forsyth, a Georgia native and Secretary of State under the administration of President Van Buren, used the Pope’s letter as part of a blistering attack against those who had nominated Benjamin Harrison’s candidacy for President in his challenge to Van Buren.  Forsyth argued a connection existed between Abolitionist supporters of Harrison, the London-based World’s Convention against Slavery, and Pope Gregory in Rome.  As Georgia was part of England’s diocesan jurisdiction, and England disagreed with the Abolitionists, he felt obliged to respond in the series of letters written to Forsyth. [14]

Seeking a Middle Ground for Catholics in the South

            England sought to distance Catholics from Harrison’s abolitionist supporters, and felt obligated to defend the Papal letter.  England wrote Forsyth a series of eighteen letters outlining his interpretation of Pope Gregory’s letter and the Church’s position on the issue of slavery. [15]   “This, Sir”, he wrote in closing the first letter of the series to Forsyth. “(I)s the fate of the Catholics of the United States; they are the shuttle-cock for the political parties of the States – threatened by the myrmidons of General Harrison’s party today, and placed in a false position by Mr. Van Buren’s Secretary of State the next day. [16]  

            England had long been wary of efforts to identify Catholics as a political bloc with monolithic loyalty to a single party or candidate.  During the 1840 Presidential campaign, England’s letters to Forsyth had attracted the attention of General Duff Green, the editor of the Pilot and Transcript of Baltimore.  The newspaper was known to support Harrison’s Whig Party, and held strong abolitionist sentiments.  In an editorial in the Pilot, Duff warned “many believe there is a well arranged plan on the part of the Catholic monarchies in the Old World to revolutionize our government by the introduction of Catholic immigrants.”  He went on to attack England directly:

“When we find one who exercises a spiritual control like that of Bishop England, putting aside his priestly robes and entering the field of politics as he has done in this instance, we feel called upon to examine how far that spiritual control is calculated to exercise an undue influence over the minds of men.” [17]

England’s response to Duff was strong, clear, and certain.  In a response to Duff’s implications to Catholic bloc voting, he wrote:

“We repeat, then, our maxim-‘Let Catholics in religion stand isolated as a body, and upon as good ground as their brethren.  Let Catholics, as citizens and politicians, not be distinguishable from their other brethren of the commonwealth.’”

In urging Catholics to be vigilant for those who would attempt to lump them into a single political bloc, he added this admonition: “Let Catholics make that man who would so distinguish them feel that he must not repeat the insult to them nor the injustice to the republic.” [18]

III.  ENGLAND’S LETTERS TO JOHN FORSYTH

            Before and after his arrival in America, John England was well-known for voicing his opinions on important issues.  When it came to an important issue, such as slavery, it should come as no surprise that England would speak out on this issue.  In his series of letters to Secretary of State John Forsyth, England outlined his opinions and positions on different topics contained with the greater issue of slavery.  In these letters, England expressed his personal opinions, but also relied on theological opinions by Catholic Popes and religious scholars to develop his argument.  England’s letters sought to defuse suspicions raised by Forsyth about the loyalty of southern Catholics as citizens, distance the Catholic Church from the issue of domestic slavery and abolition, and outline what he saw as Christian principles that would justify domestic slavery.

Slave Trading versus Domestic Slavery

            In his letters, England explained the Catholic Church viewed slavery as two separate and distinct issues: first, the issue of international slave trading, which was opposed by England and the Catholic Church, and second, the issue of domestic slavery, where the Church would remain neutral. 

England argued the Pope Gregory letter did not include the issue of domestic slavery.  “The Roman Catholic Church,” he wrote.  “(H)as always observed this distinction, and it is one as obvious as that which exists between the words ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’.” [19]   England pointed out that the United States itself had outlawed slave importation in 1808, and that “this is precisely what these several Popes reprehended and declared to be unlawful.” [20]   He went on to explain the primary purpose of the Pope’s letter was to oppose the abuses of international slave trade, “in which Portugal and Spain has so enormous a share.” [21]

According to England, Pope Gregory’s letter specifically identified three types of crimes committed by those involved in the practice of slave trade: “reducing those who were free into slavery”, “another class as criminal by becoming accessaries (sic)”, and “the traffic in those who had been made captive, by others who did not hesitate to encourage or profit by such unworthy actions.”  To contrast slave trade from domestic slavery, England cited the example of the citizens of Georgia, Forsyth’s home state: “The citizens of Georgia have not reduced any such persons into slavery.” [22]

In his second letter, England shared his personal opinions of slave trading.  In the letter, he expressed his hopes for the success of Papal negotiations with the Portuguese to shut down their slave trading industry.  England hoped that “the Portuguese government will act as ours did upwards of thirty years since, and prohibit this desolations, criminal, and inhuman system of murder, ruin and desolation.” [23]

Respecting Domestic Slavery

            England believed the Pope and the Catholic Church held a neutral opinion on this issue of slavery within a nation’s borders as a matter of domestic policy.  As with most matters of domestic policy, these were often considered beyond the Church’s jurisdiction.  Having given examples of what the Church opposed, and where the Church would not interfere on the issue of slavery, he argued the Pope was not directing his letter “against domestic slavery, the existence of which he is conscious, but respecting where he uses no action.” [24]

England pointed out that Pope Gregory’s letter was accepted by a council of American Catholic Bishops in Baltimore, and argued the lack of challenge by American church leaders, supported his opinion that the Pope’s letter did not challenge domestic slavery.  “Yet,” England wrote.  “(I)f you look to the prelates who accepted the document, for the acceptation was immediate and unanimous.”  England then named those Bishops whose dioceses included slave states, and who were a majority of members of the council, pointing out that had the Bishops determined domestic slavery to be in contradiction with Church teachings, they would be honor bound to oppose giving sacraments to those who owned slaves. [25]

“All our theologians have from the earliest epoch,” England wrote in his second letter.  “(T)hat though in a state of pure nature all men are equal, yet the natural law does not prohibit one man from having dominion over the useful action of another as his slave.” [26]   England argued that slavery was compatible in some situations with the teachings of the Church, presuming it was the outcome of an agreement entered into freely between slave and owner, and that slave owners had the right to hold the descendants of the original slave in bondage.  By presuming the origins of African slavery were voluntary, England turned a blind eye to the possibility that slaves may have been taken from their native lands against their free will, in order to establish that the domestic slavery practices of the South as legitimate and acceptable to the Church:

“Many of them were born in their houses, that is of their servants, and this was acknowledged to be a good title, not only by the law of nations, but clearly, in the case before us, by the law of God.  How were their parents slaves?  Perhaps originally they voluntarily became so.  They might also have been bought from others who had acquired a just dominion by that or by some other good title.” [27]

            For those who argued that the slaves held in the southern states might have been taken without their consent, England added a long history of theological arguments that justified slavery as the consequence of sinful conduct.  In his second letter, he cited examples of Church leaders, as far back to the fourth century A.D., who argued that slavery was not a condition of forced bondage, but rather “that slavery is the consequence of sin.”  England himself believed “that the origin of slavery, as all of our infirmities and afflictions, is to be found in sin” and that if one was held in slavery, their bondage might be the result of divine judgment. [28]

England’s Standards for the Ethical treatment of Slaves

In his third letter to Forsyth, England defined a system of obligations for both slave and master.  According to England, Church teachings also obligated Christian slaves and slave owners to exist in a symbiotic relationship with one another: “as they recommended kindness and mercy to one, they inculcate obedience and humility upon the other.” [29]   Under this system, he believed a slave was obligated to work and obey God, and the master was obligated to provide for his well-being and to respect the slave’s religious beliefs:

“The slave was accountable to God for his morality, and hence the master could not require of him to lay aside the practice of religion or to do an immoral act, but he could command his labor, and was bound to give the necessaries of life.” [30]

While England believed slavery was permissible, he was opposed to abuses committed by slave owners, by warning: “there is no crime in having the slave, but cruelty and oppression are criminal.”  He based his opinion upon the teachings of Pope Clement, who directed the Church clergy to refuse the offerings of “they who receive and treat their slaves harshly; that is, who whip or famish them, or oppress them with heavy drudgery.” [31]  
            England also argued the Church required slave owners to respect the marriages of slaves.  “Whence it appears to us, that the wedlock of slaves may not be dissolved even though they have different masters; but let them serve their masters remaining in one wedlock.” [32]

Questioning the British commitment to abolition

The British had been recognized as leaders in the abolition movement.  However, having grown up in Ireland and been an activist against British rule, England saw British abolitionist policies as hypocritical:

“(W)hilst I resided in Ireland under the operation of the persecuting code of Britain, I witnessed the yearly display by the anti-slavery society for the preparation and presentation to parchment of two petitions: one for abolishing the slavery of the negroes in the West Indies, the other for riveting the chains of the white slaves in Ireland, by continuing to enforce the penal laws against the Roman Catholics.” [33]

            England also questioned the effectiveness of British efforts to control international slave trading upon the high seas.  He cited a letter from an observer in Sierra Leone in June 1840, claiming the British were able to, at best, stop one in seven slave ships, and their actions only served to make the industry more lucrative for those who continued to practice it.  “There is more secrecy,” England cites from the observer’s letter.  “(B)ut the slave trade is nearly as frequent as before, but more profitable, for that reason more alluring.” [34]

IV.  CONCLUSION

            The debate over the direction the American nation would take in regards to the issue of slavery was far more complex than just Northern abolitionists versus Southern slave owners and business interests.  Bishop John England attempted to help define a middle ground on the issues of slavery and good citizenship for Catholics as the nation moved towards the brink of a bloody and terrible Civil War between fellow Americans.  The letters of John England, as well as an understanding of the historical context which they are part of, will help give some insight to some of the clerical efforts made to strike a balance between man on Earth and God in Heaven on the issue of slavery.

V.  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source:

England, John.  “Letters of the Late Bishop England to the Hon. John Forsyth on the Subject of Domestic Slavery”.  Baltimore, Maryland: John Murphy, 1844.

Secondary Sources:

Cheeseborough, David B.  “Clery Dissent in the Old South, 1830-1865.”  Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996.

Cornelius, Janet Duitsman.  “When I Can Read My Title Clear: Literacy, Slavery, and Religion in the Antebellum South.”  Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1991.

Duffy, P.L., translated by Potter, Douglas J.  “John England.” 2003.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05470a.htm>  (November 25, 2003).

Madden, Richard C.  “Catholics in South Carolina: A Record”.  Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1985.

O’Brien, Joseph L., M.A., S.T.D.  “John England-Bishop of Charleston: The Apostle to Democracy.”  New York: The Edward O’Toole Co., Inc., 1934.

Virtalology.  “John Forsyth, 1780-1841”. 2000.  <http://www.vitualology.com/virutalmuseumofhistory/hallofrhetoric>  (November 25, 2003).

VI.  ENDNOTES

[1] Cheeseborough, David B.  “Clery Dissent in the Old South, 1830-1865.”  (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996), p. 2.

[2] Duffy, P.L., translated by Potter, Douglas J.  “John England.” 2003.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05470a.htm>  (November 25, 2003).

[3]   Madden, Richard C.  “Catholics in South Carolina: A Record” (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1985), p. 31.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Duffy, P.L., translated by Potter, Douglas J.  “John England.” 2003.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05470a.htm>  (November 25, 2003).

[6] Madden, Richard C.  “Catholics in South Carolina: A Record” (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1985), p. 33.

[7]   Ibid, 38.

[8] Duffy, P.L., translated by Potter, Douglas J.  “John England.” 2003.  <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05470a.htm>  (November 25, 2003).

[9] Cornelius, Janet Duitsman.  “When I Can Read My Title Clear: Literacy, Slavery, and Religion in the Antebellum South”  (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), p. 41.

[10] Virtalology.  “John Forsyth, 1780-1841”. 2000.  <http://www.vitualology.com/virutalmuseumofhistory/hallofrhetoric>  (November 25, 2003).

[11]   England, John.  “Letters of the Late Bishop England to the Hon. John Forsyth on the Subject of Domestic Slavery” (Baltimore, Maryland: John Murphy, 1844), p. 14.

[12] O’Brien, Joseph L., M.A., S.T.D.  “John England-Bishop of Charleston: The Apostle to Democracy”  (New York: The Edward O’Toole Co., Inc., 1934), p. 138.

[13]   Ibid, 139.

[14] O’Brien, Joseph L., M.A., S.T.D.  “John England-Bishop of Charleston: The Apostle to Democracy”  (New York: The Edward O’Toole Co., Inc., 1934), p. 149.

[15] England, John.  “Letters of the Late Bishop England to the Hon. John Forsyth on the Subject of Domestic Slavery” (Baltimore, Maryland: John Murphy, 1844), p. 19.

[16]   Ibid, 152.

[17] O’Brien, Joseph L., M.A., S.T.D.  “John England-Bishop of Charleston: The Apostle to Democracy”  (New York: The Edward O’Toole Co., Inc., 1934), p. 133.

[18] Ibid, 142.

[19] England, John.  “Letters of the Late Bishop England to the Hon. John Forsyth on the Subject of Domestic Slavery” (Baltimore, Maryland: John Murphy, 1844), p. 17.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid, 21.

[22] Ibid, 17.

[23] Ibid, 20.

[24] Ibid, 21.

[25] Ibid, 20.

[26] Ibid, 22.

[27] Ibid, 26.

[28] Ibid, 24.

[29] Ibid, 134.

[30] Ibid, 25.

[31] Ibid, 41.

[32] Ibid, 82.

[33] Ibid, 15.

[34] Ibid, 21.

---

Got something to say?  Email me!

HOME
My Bio
Family Pics
Traveling Pics
My Catholic Faith

My College
My Papers
COMM 510 webpage
Nat'l Comm. Assoc.
Carolinas Comm Assoc.
Graduation Day Pics

My Company Online
SC UCC
My Church
Melkite Catholic Diocese
The Vatican
The 80s Server
Sirius Satellite Radio
  My Fave Channels:
   19, 22, 23, 160