1. The Settlers of North America—Martyrs for the Rights of Religious Conscience. Religious Exclusivity and Intolerance of the Puritans. Their Relation to Quakers and Catholics. The State Character of Religion. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Disabilities of the Latter. Anti-Catholic Legislation. The Proclamation of Freedom in Maryland and its Consequences. The Religious Intolerance of Congress. (Cont.) (2)

Protestantism related to Catholicism in a similar manner in the other colonies. According to the legislation of Massachusetts, as has been said above, Jesuits were expelled from the colony, and in case of return were subject to execution. In Virginia, “papists” were rendered incapable of being witnesses in any cases whatsoever, could not bear arms, and could not keep horses valued at more than five pounds sterling[1]. But their fate was particularly remarkable in Maryland. This colony was settled almost exclusively by Catholics, under the protection of the Catholic Lord Baltimore, to whom a royal charter had given possession of the land. Lord Baltimore, himself converted to Catholicism as a result of the horrors of persecution against him in England, considered it his first duty in his colony to proclaim religious freedom of conscience, and with his own hand wrote a charter which granted freedom of conscience to all Christians and secured voting rights in the making of laws to all free men[2]. “Roman Catholics,” says a Protestant historian, “oppressed by the laws of England, could with confidence find a peaceful refuge in the quiet harbor of the Chesapeake, and Protestants were also sheltered from Protestant intolerance”[3]. “A Puritan, expelled from Anglican Virginia, and the peaceful Quaker, whose ears were cut off in Puritan New England, found shelter among the liberal and warm-hearted Catholics of Maryland,” adds a Catholic historian[4]. But such religious toleration by Catholics amid the general dominance of the spirit of intolerance caused them many troubles. Soon the Protestant population gained predominance in the colony, and with it the hostility of Protestants toward Catholics began to manifest itself. In 1644 the Protestant population, led by an ambitious adventurer, raised an uprising against the Catholics, so that the Catholic missionaries and the proprietor of the colony himself were forced to flee, and only after two years was order restored by the use of military force[5]. Realizing the impossibility of sustaining the struggle against Protestants by force, the Catholics sought to secure themselves juridically against Protestant violence, and at their insistence, chiefly the general assembly in 1649 enacted the “Act of Toleration,” which granted complete freedom of conscience to all “professing faith in Jesus Christ”[6]. But this act only briefly reconciled the warring parties. The execution of King Charles in England led to the rise of Cromwell, and in his person Puritanism felt power in its hands. This event echoed instantly in America, and the Puritans of Maryland again raised an uprising against the Catholics. In 1654 they formed an assembly from which Catholics were excluded; they abolished the “Act of Toleration” and enacted their own act, which affirmed freedom of conscience on the condition that freedom should not extend to “Popery, prelacy, or licentiousness of opinion,” under which Catholicism was understood[7]. Thanks to the efforts of Lord Baltimore, Catholics for a time defended their rights, but then one after another enactment finally deprived them of freedom of conscience. In 1692 the assembly proclaimed the Anglican Church the established state church in the colony of Maryland and laid upon the citizens of all denominations, including Catholics, taxes for the support of Protestant clergy. In 1704 a new law, titled “An Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery in the Province,” forbade bishops and pastors to say Mass, perform sacraments, or convert unbelievers; forbade Catholics to teach, and gave Catholic children who converted to Protestantism the right to demand their share of property from their Catholic parents, as if the parents were dead. Catholics were allowed to perform Mass only in private homes. In 1706 an act gave freedom to Quakers to conduct their worship, so that “in the colony founded by Catholics, Catholics were the only victims of the intolerance of the ruling party”[8]. “In the following years by a series of successive laws they were deprived of voting rights unless they solemnly renounced their faith. The executive power often arbitrarily issued ordinances “to take children from the pernicious influence of Catholic parents,” and the assembly voted to require papists to pay double taxes collected from Protestants. The hostility toward Catholics grew to such a point that they were even forbidden from appearing in certain parts of the cities”[9].

Such was the legal position of Catholics until the very revolution in all colonies, excepting only Pennsylvania, where the peaceful Quakers easily coexisted with Catholics. To what extent Protestantism was intolerant toward Catholics can be seen from the fact that Protestants could not remain indifferent to Catholic freedom even beyond their own colonies. After France ceded Canada to the English government, the parliamentary act of 1774, after several years of military rule, restored to the Catholics inhabiting this province the rights which they had enjoyed under French rule: empowered them to sit in the provincial council, restored the application of French law in civil matters, guaranteed to Catholic clergy the possession of their property and complete freedom in religious matters. Protestants rose up in indignation at the granting of such wide rights to Catholics, and the Massachusetts colony presented a protest to Congress in 1774, in which it was stated: “that the late act of Parliament establishing the Roman Catholic religion and French law in that extensive country (Canada) is fraught with danger to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America; and therefore we, as men and Protestant Christians, are necessarily bound to adopt all proper measures for our security”[10]. Congress, having considered “the rights and grievances of these colonies,” came to the conclusion: “that the following acts of Parliament are infractions and violations of the rights of the colonists, namely: the act establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the Province of Quebec (Canada), repealing the just system of English laws, and establishing tyranny there to the great danger (from such complete dissimilitude in religion, law, and government) of the neighboring British colonies, with the aid of blood and treasure which through their assistance the said country was conquered from France… Such heavy acts and measures Americans cannot submit to”[11]. In an address to the British people Congress of the same year says: “We cannot suppress our wonder that the British Parliament could ever consent to establish in that country (Canada) a religion which has drenched your island in blood and spread impiety, bigotry, persecution, and murder throughout all parts of the globe”[12].

Such speech of religious intolerance toward Catholics was heard from the lips of the representatives of the colonies on the eve of a great event—the proclamation of independence, which was to result in a law of complete freedom of conscience in religious matters, for all denominations without distinction. The elucidation of the question of how such a sharp reversal could take place becomes of primary importance for the clear understanding of the character of the paragraph of the Constitution concerning religion and the reasons for its appearance.

Footnotes

[6] This important act in the history of the development of freedom of conscience reads as follows: “Since enforcing conscience in matters of religion has often produced harmful consequences in those communities where it was practiced, and for more peaceful and tranquil government of this province, and to better preserve mutual love and friendship among the inhabitants, no person in this province professing belief in Jesus Christ should be in any way molested or despised for his or her faith, or disturbed in the free exercise thereof.” Bancroft, History of U.S. Vol. I, ch. VII, p. 194. There is still dispute among Protestant and Catholic historians as to whom this act owes its origin more—to Protestants or Catholics? Catholic historians assert that the act belongs to Catholics, since the “general assembly” that enacted it consisted of a Catholic majority, of eleven Catholics and three Protestants (Murray, p. 140; Shea, p. 32). But the leader of Protestant historians Bancroft says that the assembly consisted of six members, of whom three were Protestants and three Catholics, and of representatives of the Maryland population, of whom five were Catholics, with the chief instigator of this matter being the Protestant governor of the province Stone (Bancroft, Vol. I ch. VII, p. 193). But the facts incline the conclusion rather toward Catholics.