1 Cf. my article in the Review of Politics (07, 1943), V:275–301Google Scholar and in The Catholic Historical Review (07, 1945), XXXI:133–153.Google Scholar

2 Rice, Madeleine Hooke, American Catholic Opinion in the Slavery Controversy (New York, 1944), pp. 62–72.Google Scholar

3 Clancy, Raymond J. C.S.C., “American Catholic Prelates in the Vatican Council” in U. S. Cath. Hist. Records & Studies, XXVIII:8–135.Google Scholar

4 Zwierlein, F. J., The Life and Letters of Bishop McQuaid. 3 vols. (Rochester, N. Y., 1926) II:378–474.Google Scholar and Macdonald, FergusC.P., , The Catholic Church and the Secret Societies in the United States (New York, 1946), especially Chapter VI.Google Scholar

5 Campbell, James M., “The Catholic Contribution to the American College” in Vital Problems in Catholic Education in the Untied States, ed. by Deferrari, Roy J. (Washington, 1939) pp. 84–107.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Curti, Merle, The Growth of American Thought (New York, 1943), pp. 316–7, 492–3.Google Scholar

7 Sister Ray, M. Augustina, B.V.M. American Opinion of Roman Catholicism in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1936) Iraces the decline of political opposition to Catholicism under the influence of the Revolution and the granting of political toleration; cf. especially pp. 292–3.Google Scholar

8 Mathew, David, The Jacobean Age (New York, 1938), pp. 11–16;Google Scholar also, Hughes, Philip, The Catholic Question (New York, 1929); pp. 122–141.Google Scholar

9 Shea, in The History of the Catholic Church within the United Stales (4 vols. New York, 1886–1892) is less given to this devotion to the Irish immigrants than Monsignor Guilday because of his adherence to a more strictly hierarchical history and because of his broader perspective.Google Scholar

10 Cf. Guilday's, The Church in Virginia (1815–1822) (New York, 1924)Google Scholar and The Life and Times of John England, First Bishop of Charleston 1786–1842 (2 vols. New York, 1927).Google Scholar The otherwise Very careful Monsignor is quite explicit in these matters in his “Introduction” to the latter study (pp. 1–35) and in Vol. II (pp. 68–110). Monsignor Guilday would undoubtedly have used a different word than “race” in his discussion had he realized the evil connotation such racial arguments now imply. He had manifested great interest in the findings of the present writer on this topic before his untimely sickness and death.

11 Lord, R. H., Sexton, J. E., and Harrington, E. T., History, of the Archdiocese of Boston, (3 vol. New York, 1946), I:619–631.Google Scholar

12 The best account of the Irish immigrants of this period is that of Adams, W. F., Ireland and Irish Emigration to the New World from 1815 to the Famine (New Haven, 1932),Google Scholar especially Chapter VII “The Fruits of Emigration.” Noteworthy on the cultural conflict is Hansen's, M. W. essay “Immigration and Puritanism” in The Immigrant in American History (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. also, Krout, J. A. and Fox, D. R., The Completion of Independence (New York, 1944), pp. 377–9.Google Scholar

13 Guilday, , Life and Times of John England, 1:251–2.Google Scholar

14 U. S. Catholic Miscellany (08 3, 1825) V:80.Google Scholar

15 Idem (Sept. 14, 1825) V. 17:5–6.

16 First draft of a letter of Maréchal to England, July 28, 1821 in the Baltimore Papers, University of Notre Dame Archives.

17 This confusion of religion and nationality is clearly demonstrated in the first issue of The Freeman's Journal (07 4, 1840).Google Scholar Other examples can be found eltewhere in that newspaper as well as in The Truth Teller (New York, 1825–1855)Google Scholar, The Pilot (Boston, 1846–),Google Scholar and The American Celt (1852–1857).Google Scholar The U.S. Catholic Miscellany, while manifesting deep interest in Irish news was notably American and theological, as was also The Catholic Telegraph (1831–) of Cincinnati.

18 Manuscript of a sermon preached by Maréchal, Dec. 20, 1817, in St. Peter's Church in Baltimore in which he summarizes the condition of the Church in America at the beginning of his episcopate. U. of Notre Dame Archives.

19 Derived from the small manuscript volume “Letters of some importance” containing copies of some of Maréchal's letters in his own hand. U. of Notre Dame Archives.

20 “The Pastoral letter of 1837” written by England contains an extensive defense of the Catholic immigrant without any recognition of the native Catholics. The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy ed. by Guilday, P. K. (Washington, 1923), pp. 90–2.Google Scholar

21 O'Shea, John J., The Two Archbishops Kenrick (Philadelphia, 1904) is very unsatisfactory. The forthcoming study of Francis Patrick Kenrick by Rev. Hugh Nolan will cover the yean before his promotion to Baltimore in 1851.Google Scholar

22 There is no satisfactory study of Purcell. The unfortunate financial scandal of his last years as archbishop has clouded over an earlier life of great missionary zeal in the Ohio Valley.

23 The forthcoming volume on Archbishop Hughes by Monsignor Guilday and now being completed by Thomas F. O'Connor should furnish a reliable guide for the public career of this remarkable clergyman. The biographies by Hassard, J. R. G. (New York, 1866)Google Scholar and Brann, Henry (New York, 1892) are inadequate.Google Scholar

24 Purcell's Americanization had been so complete that Bishop Ignatius Reynolds once apologized to him for a remark Reynolds had made against foreign-born bishops in the presence of Purcell, whom he had come to look upon as a native. Letter of Reynolds to Purcell, Sept. 27, 1847, U. of Notre Dame Archives.

25 Letter of Bishop Richard V. Whelan of Wheeling to Bishop John McGill of Richmond, May 15, 1851, Richmond, May 15, 1851, Richmond Diocesan Archives. The New York Times of July 31 and August 1, 1854 contained editorials referring to Brownson's articles and hinting that there existed dissensions between the native and foreign-born prelates in the Church. This was denied by Hughes under the pen-name “Philo-Veritas.” (Cf. Freeman's Journal, 08 19, 1854.) Hughes was correct in stating that there was no serious difference between the two groups of prelates and he may have been unaware of the feeling of such bishops as Whelan and Reynolds.Google Scholar

26 Shea, John G., History of the Catholic Church within the U. S. III:364–5. Bedini urged the appointment of more American-born bishops whom he found “more courageous and fearless, more steadfast in the struggles which not infrequently arise.”Google Scholar

27 This is clearly brought out in a prize essay on “Catholic Literature in the United States” in The Metopoliian (Baltimore) of 1854; II:69–75; 133–139; 198–204.Google Scholar

28 Cf. The Metropolitan (Baltimore), IV:251–3. The letter of “Oliver” on the Buffalo Convention of 1856 for the promotion of Irish colonization in the west shows that some at least disagreed with Hughes.Google Scholar

29 The Bishop's Pastoral Letter of 1852 stressed the great material handicap involved in caring for these poorer immigrants in estimating the future prospects of the Church in the country. National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy) (1792–1919) pp. 187–191.Google Scholar

30 Brownson's more notable essays on this topic are in the Brownson Quarterly Review of January (XI:1–29) 07 (XI:328–353) and October (XI:447–486), 1854 and January, 1857 (XIV: 114–141).Google Scholar

31 In his “Lecture on the Present Condition and Prospects of the Catholic Church in the United States” (Complete Work (New York, 1864). II pp. 102–121) Hughes distinguishes the original Maryland group, the immigrants and the converts in die growth of the Church in this country.Google Scholar

32 Handlin, Oscar, Boston's Immigrants 1790–1865, (Cambridge, 1941) stresses this political backwardness but shows a serious lack of appreciation for the religious faith of the immigrants.Google Scholar

33 Billington, Ray, The Protestani Crusade (1800–1860) (New York, 1938), especially Chapter XII “The Catholic Church Blunders.” Billington considers thil aggressiveness a blunder.Google Scholar

34 There are several rough drafts of Brownson letters supporting his position on this point in the Brownson Mss. U. of Notre Dame Archives.

35 Lebreton, D. R., Chata-Ima. The Life of Adrien-Emmanuel Rouquette (Baton Rouge, 1947), pp. 187–198.Google Scholar

36 A capable study of this Kentucky group after 1815 and its filial settlements in die neighboring states has not been made. SisterMartingly's, M. RamonaThe Catholic Church on the Kentucky Frontier (1785–1812) (Washington, 1937)Google Scholar does not cover this later period. Spalding's, M. J.Sketches of the Early Catholic Missions of Kentucky 1787 to 1826–7 (Baltimore, 1844)Google Scholar and Sketches of the Life and Times and Character of Benedict J. Flaget (Louisville, 1852)Google Scholar are based on material that has since disappeared. Webb's, B. J.The Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884) is informative about many things but is incomplete and disorganized. Many private genealogical studies are being prepared about these Kentucky families.Google Scholar

37 Cf. McAvoy, Thomas T., The Catholic Church in Indiana 1789–1834, pp. 126–8, 141–2, 158–9, 200–1;Google Scholar also Stephenson, George M., “Nativism in the Forties and Fifties, with special Reference to the Mississippi Valley” in Miss. Valley Hist Review, IX: 185–202.Google Scholar

38 Cf. “Bishop Bruté's Report to Rome in 1836” ed. by McAvoy, T. T. in Catholic Historical Review (07 1943) XXIX: 177–233.Google Scholar Bruté estimated the number of converts very highly. His successor, Bishop Celestine de la Hailandière was of the same opinion. The chief defect of Shaugnessy's, G. M.Has the Immigrant Kept the Faith? (New York, 1925) is his failure to estimate properly these converts.Google Scholar

39 Brownson, Henry F., Orestes A. Bronmson's Latter Life from 1856 to 1876 (Detroit, 1900), pp. 66–75.Google Scholar

40 SisterSchroeder, Mary Carol, O.S.F., The Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes, 1847–1877, (Washington, 1946), pp. 70–114,Google Scholar studies this immigration in Indiana; also Rothan, Emmet H., O.F.M. treats the German Catholic immigration in The German Catholic Immigration in the United States (1830–1860) (Washington, 1946), especially chapter VIII “German Catholics and Rural Communities.”Google Scholar

41 The Metropolitan (Baltimore) 01, 1857 (pp. 720–723).Google Scholar This editorial is a comment on the article of Archbishop Hughes on the Catholic press in the December, 1856 issue (pp. 629–661) and on Brownson's criticism of the Archbishop's statement in the January, 1857 issue of Brownson's Quarterly Review (XIV: 114–141).Google Scholar

42 In his “Lecture on the Present Condition and Prospects of the Catholic Church in the United States” he does recognize the existence of the early Maryland Catholics but when he speaks of Catholics in the American Revolution he mentions only Irish names.