Rectifying the Fatal Contrast: Archbishop John Purcell and the Slavery Controversy among Catholics in Civil War Cincinnati

Rectifying the Fatal Contrast: Archbishop John Purcell and the Slavery Controversy among Catholics in Civil War Cincinnati David J. Endres Historians who have clocumented the American Catholic response to the Civil War and slavery have largely focused on the thinking of a few prominent northern ecclesi: istical and intellectual leaders. Men such as Archbishop John Joseph Hughes of New Yi, rk, theologian Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, and Cathohc newspaper editor James MeMaster dominate the landscape of historical inquiry.' These northern Catholic intellectuals adopted a consistently conservative approach to the difficult questions of the day. They supported reconciliation between North and South, criticized abolitionism, tired of emancipation quickly, and supported the Constitutioii. Though such sentiments dominated the thinking of the Catliolic leadership of the time, other voices did emerge throughout the war that would challenge the approach of these leading thinkers. Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati w. is one of these minority v() ices, the first American Catholic bishop to offer public support for immediate emancipation of slaves. Thrc, ugh his teaching and the influence of his diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Telegraph, Purcell attempted to convince his readers of the inconsistency of slavery' s existence in a trce natioii while striking at the racial, religious, and political discord that shaped the loyalties of Catholics in antebellum America. Historians have largely ignored Purcell's contribution to the intellectual and moral conversatic, n of the period, mentioning him only in passing as an example of a divergent opinioii. Yet his presence in Cincinnati was critical in shaping the ideological climate of the Ohio Valley during the Civil War era.' The United States in the middle of the nineteenth century was in the midst of a great struggle, weakened by sectional conflict and torn over the practical and moral repercussions of slavery. For many, slavery was not simply a question of human dignity or personal liberty, but rather fit within the ongoing debate over the concept ot states' rights and the appic, priate relationship (, f labor und economic gain. Americans (, t every 1(, cality and viewpoint entered into the debate, which soon grew to encompass the status of the country and its future. Many, especially in the South,wished to preserve the nation as it was, with li, cal auton) my and the ability to maintain or even expand the institution of slavery. For abolitionists ill the North, however, slavery symbolized all that prevented the cuntry from achieving political, social, and moral purity. Religious belief was central to the debate and, with its language common to the North and South, often meshed with political and ethnic ideologies to lend strength to the slavery controversy. Religion was used as a means of affirming the practices of both the slaveholder and the abolitionist. As President Abraham Lincoln stated of the North and South in his second inaugural address, " Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other."' Consequently, religious schism often preceded political separation as religious groups became polarized over slavery. The Presbyterians and Baptists attempted to preserve institutional unity until the outbreak of the war while the Methodist Church split into two factions in I 845, a separation caused by some members' refusal to agree to a slave holder's becoming bishop. Even when attempts to preserve unity appeared successful, internal division F, 111 2002 Rectifying the Fatal Contrast 2 3 often existed. In I 837 when the Presbyterian Church had divided inti, New and Old Schools, the former became increasingly : intislavery : ind found its greatest strength aniong New Englanders while the latter was composed of conservative members, mainly southerners: In the midst of this sectional conflict and religious distinion, the Roman Catholic Church in America attempted to bridge these divisions in order to be true to its model as one, holy, catholic Church. Unlike the religic, us denominatic, ns that failed to preserve unity, the Catholic Church officially identified with neither the aboliticmists nor the slave holders, both of whom it considered radicals. Marked by its conservatism, the Catholic Church during this peric, d spoke in favor of moderatic, 11 and compromise, not rash action. Most American Catholic bishops rallied for unity and...