There is a certain kind of Catholic who loves—and I mean really loves—Hierarchy. They tend to be the sort who condemn democracy, pluralism, and most any kind of social freedom. It goes without saying that not all Catholics are like this, of course—most of the Catholic brothers and sisters around here, to take but one example, are enthusiastic contributors to the democracies of America or any other in which they’re found. But there is a minority who are more devoted to Hierarchy (note the capital) than may be wise, and those sorts of Catholics often fall into rather unfortunate errors of historical interpretation. They will often jump to the defense of any sort of authoritarian state or rigidly stratified society, regardless of whether or not such societies were actually nice places to live, or even notably Catholic. We can see such errors in the article I present for dissection today: A sanguine apologia for the late and unlamented (by everyone aside from Leeaboos, libertardians, and other assorted right-wing riff-raff) Confederacy given to us by “the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
A brief aside: I’m sure at least a few of my Catholic readers will be groaning at the sight of that name. While the Slaves (that’s what they call themselves, and you’ll see the irony as this review goes on) are apparently currently in good standing with the greater Catholic Church as a whole (this was not always the case), they certainly have a reputation for being one of its more obstinately right-wing branches. But while mocking such a group may perhaps be low-hanging fruit, I’m in the mood for both an easy snack and a smackdown of some Lost Cause nonsense. So let’s take a look at the article “Catholicism and the Old South,” by Gary Potter, up at the official online journal of the Slaves (the New Hampshire branch, at least), Catholicism.org. Love the name, by the way, gotta tell everybody that they’re the Real True and Honest Official Catholics. Anyways, let’s check it out:
http://catholicism.org/catholicism-south.html
Potter’s essay begins with a couple of anecdotes that supposedly demonstrate the affinity the Catholic Church had for the Confederate cause. Pope Pius IX sent SCA President Davis a religious gift while he was in prison, and some Catholic nuns sent him a rosary as well. Some nuns (perhaps the same who sent him the rosary) gave his wife some help when she was impoverished after the war. According to Potter, who spends the rest of his essay arguing the point, such charming little incidents reflected the fact that the Confederacy had been a “more Catholic” nation than its Union opponent (despite neither country being majority-Catholic). Its “agricultural” and “hierarchical” mode of life was more in keeping with Catholic social teaching, and Potter claims that had the South won, a “Catholic civilization” might have arisen in the Anglophone world of North America. Granted, the sticky issue of slavery might make that seem less attractive at first, but not to worry: Potter assures us that the North was even more racist than the South, the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery, and in any case slavery wasn’t so bad and Christianized the happy and contented slaves.
It will hopefully go without saying that this review will refute each of those assertions.
The opening anecdotes alone reveal some of the issues with this piece as a whole. I won’t even bother commenting on their factual accuracy—some people in the comments themselves note that Davis probably received the “crown of thorns” gift from his wife, not the Pope. But take a good look at Potter’s cloying sympathy for Jefferson Davis in prison. Those boorish Yankees treated him so poorly, even posting guards around while he had to use the facilities! It’s rather telling that Potter doesn’t say a word about how those oh-so-honorable rebels treated prisoners at Andersonville—or what they did to black soldiers who surrendered, for that matter. A myopic (to put it lightly) whitewashing of the South’s sins mixed with an equally blind focus on those of the North (and I’m not denying many Northerners were racist, profited off of slavery, etc., one can’t deny Copperheads existed) pervades pretty much this entire essay.
Of course, good-old fashioned oversimplifications and misinterpretations make outsized appearances too. Potter’s description of the “Catholic” nature of Southern institutions is full of them. He claims “the Catholic influence in American society was much stronger in the less populous South than in the North at the time of the war…there was no place in the North at the time of the war that could be described as Catholic the way, for instance, New Orleans could…In a region where family mattered, numerous leading families were Catholic…Even when the leading families of the South were not Catholic — and most were not — they tended to have a high regard and deep respect for the Church and her institutions, especially her schools.”
This is, to be fair, not entirely inaccurate. Recent scholarship has found that Catholicism was not much less well-represented in the South than it was in the North. Dennis Rousey’s 2006 article, “Catholics in the Old South: Their Population, Institutional Development, and Relations with Protestants” took a look a demographic data and church statistics to find that Catholic churches made up a roughly equal proportion of churches in urban areas in the North and South (22 and 21 percent, respectively) in 1860. It was only in rural areas that the North had markedly more Catholic churches; Catholic places of worship were 8% of rural churches up there compared to 2% down there. Rousey also notes that Southern Catholics generally suffered less from bigotry and prejudice than Northern ones did; while the Know-Nothing party was active in both regions, outright violence and vandalism of Catholic churches was less common in the South.
If Potter could read this right now, he might be smirking and saying to himself, “see? I was right!” But a closer examination of Potter’s claims in light of Rousey’s article just might prove embarrassing. Potter goes on to assert that Catholicism suited the Old South for reasons described by the poet Allen Tate. He summarizes Tate by saying “[The Old South was] the only truly European civilization ever known in America. That is in the sense that it was a civilization rooted in its own soil. It was one that produced men who measured their success in life according to non-material standards, perhaps the chief of them being honor. It was an agricultural civilization, and a hierarchical one. That by itself was enough to make Pius or even most ordinary Catholics of the day sympathetic to the South.”
There are many things wrong with this, but we can find the first immediately in Potter’s “rooted in its own soil” and “agricultural civilization” praise of the South. As Rousey’s article notes, only in urban areas did Catholicism in the South approach the representation it had in the North. Rousey states this explicitly on page 7: “Taken together, Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, and Episcopalians in 1860 accounted for 44.5% of church accommodations in the urban South, compared with just 7.7% in the rural South. The presence of so many religious nonevangelicals, as well as the material acquisitiveness, transience, and anonymity associated with an urban market economy, defined a distinctive urban culture marked by much greater religious diversity, tolerance, worldliness, and irreligion than the culture of the southern countryside.” Southern Catholicism found its most fertile ground in the pluralistic, mercantile, and worldly city--not the bucolic agrarian regions Potter idealizes.
His idealization of “Southern Honor” is equally unconvincing, at least for an educated reader. As Bertram Wyatt-Brown’s seminal monograph, along with others such as Kenneth Brown’s Honor and Slavery have made clear, the Southern honor Potter praises involved dueling, gambling, cockfighting, and a variety of other activities ranging from cruel to stupid to both. Not the sorts of things a guy like, say, St. Francis (the gentle Catholic saint known for his love of animals) would particularly approve of.
Even that would be too generous to Potter’s argument—because his insinuation that Southerners weren’t concerned with making money is hilariously wrong. As much as they may have talked big about honor, the lords of the lash cared as much about profit as the “commercial types” of the North did. A primary source demonstrating this would be the (vastly wealthy) James Hammond’s personal diaries, in which his lamentations for the deaths of his slaves are almost always mixed in with lamentations for the shrinking of his pocketbook. Hammond’s reaction to the illness of a pair of male slaves on his plantation was quite telling: “if God would only allow my negroes to live and thrive and give me reasonable health, I could stand the rest and fight it out with the world…If my negroes increased as they ought, I should feel that I had a fund growing for my children, and I would cheerfully apply myself to every labor of improvement or retrenchment to keep even with the world. But why be industrious when the fruits are struck down by death.”
One might praise Hammond’s concern for his children’s financial standing, but you cannot deny that Hammond’s concern for his slaves was primarily pecuniary, not affectionate. He was concerned about his pocketbook above all else, every bit as much as some “mercantile Yankee.” For even more proof of just how greedy the “honorable” South really was, check out the many essays in The Old South’s Modern Worlds, or Walter Johnson’s River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom, or of course Edward Baptist’s The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. Now, to be sure, all of these works make clear that many Northerners supported and profited from slavery as well—there’s even a book, Ebony and Ivy, that explores the massive amount of money prestigious Ivy League colleges in New England made from dealing with slave traders. But every time Potter brings up Northern racism or proslavery sentiment, he uses the point to conclude that the Southerners were both less racist and nobler in their aims. This is nonsense. To claim, as Potter does, that Southerners were “motivated by loftier goals than moneymaking” is pure delusion.
It is upon this delusion that Potter asserts the Vatican and the Pope were sympathetic to the Confederacy, and of course, a bit of reading will find his assertion to be quite incorrect. “Why did Pius, alone among European heads of state, extend recognition?” Potter asks. “On this score, there is no particular historical document to which the historian can refer... We can still arrive at a likely explanation. This will be by coming to a deeper understanding of Southern culture, of the Southern way of life.”
Well, no, sorry to disappoint you, Potter. David J. Alvarez has another good article in The Catholic Historical Review on the Pope’s views on the Civil War. In the early 1860s, the Pope feared losing support from Catholic countries such as France and Spain, and therefore felt “the prospect of a regenerated Union promised relief for the diplomatic ills of the Papacy”—that is to say, the Papacy wanted a Northern victory and suppression of the rebellion. When Northerners met with military setbacks in 1862, Pius encouraged American clergymen like Archbishop John Hughes (of New York) and Archbishop John Odin (of New Orleans) to “conciliate the minds of the combatants” in order to stop more blood from being shed. Further lack of Northern progress combined with the Emancipation Proclamation (ironically enough) was what dimmed the Pope’s view of the Union. Pius received a missive from Martin Spalding defending the South and warning that emancipation would lead to slave rebellion (this is a point Potter also makes and which was also incorrect, as we will see shortly). Only after that point did Pius even agree to meet with Confederate officials, and a Roman cardinal, Giacomo Antonelli, stated that the “overtures” Pius sent to the Confederacy were merely diplomatic niceties and not formal recognitions. Pius supposedly stated to a British diplomat that his sympathies were with the Confederacy, but this seems to have been due to his mistaken assumption that the Emancipation Proclamation was intended to spark a slave rebellion. In short, then, it seems that Pius’ changing attitude towards the Confederacy was based on a variety of factors, ranging from Union successes to fear of social disorder—not on any affinity for a “hierarchical” or “agrarian” civilization.
Potter’s delusions continue with his excursions into alternate history. This is not the only offending paragraph, but it sums up the worst of this essay well enough:
“What if the South had succeeded in establishing its independence? At least there would have been an American nation in the mid-nineteenth century marked by a strong Catholic influence. Further, the children sent to Southern Catholic schools by leading families would have grown up and taken their positions as leaders of society; slavery doubtless would have ended; the waves of European Catholic immigrants at the end of the century and beginning of this one would probably have washed onto Southern shores instead of flooding Northern cities, possibly neutralizing or even submerging the “Teutonic Puritanism of the New England textile manufacturers” embraced by too many in the South; and there could have arisen an English-speaking Catholic nation in North America.”
Allow me another aside on this first—even if the South had won, it’s very, very far from certain the Confederacy would have turned into some Catholic haven. Despite the prominence of Catholicism in New Orleans and positive feelings for Catholics among the general populace engendered by Catholic charity during the war, some Southerners took a very, very dim view of “Popery.” Robert Lewis Dabney comes to mind—a fervent defender of the South and slavery, a hagiographer of Stonewall Jackson, and one of the most prominent Presbyterian theologians of 19th century America, Dabney was a staunch opponent of the Faith. In “The Attractions of Popery,” Dabney (amusingly enough) admitted that “Rome proposes herself as the stable advocate of obedience, order, and permanent authority through the ages”—that is to say, he praised it for its adherence to hierarchy. But this was not a compliment to the Church—it was an exhortation for Protestants to abjure the “pernicious” doctrines of equality so they could better combat the Church! Earlier, Dabney stated that “we believe that the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Prelacy and popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total extirpation…The grand architect was too cunning to make it, like his earlier essays, mere atheism, or mere fetishism…for in these forms the trap only ensnared the coarser and more ignorant natures. He has now perfected it and baited it for all types of humanity, the most refined as well as the most imbruted.”
No prizes for guessing who Dabney was referring to by “the grand architect.” He was literally calling Catholicism a product of the devil! If guys like that could serve as chaplains in the Confederate Army and professors of theology in Southern universities (look up Dabney’s biography on Wikipedia), one suspects that anti-Catholic feeling would have been just as successful as Catholicism in grasping hold of an independent Confederacy.
The fact that such a fervent pro-slavery man like Dabney would praise a religion he otherwise loathed for its hierarchical nature will hopefully lead the reader to strongly doubt—at the very least—Potter’s assertion that slavery would have ended with a Confederate victory. I don’t even need to refute this nonsense--/u/georgy_k_zhukov had already demonstrated quite well that the South seceded for slavery; their entire purpose was to preserve the “peculiar institution.” I’d just like to quickly refute a few of Potter’s claims he makes afterwards, in the subsection on slavery.
1: “More to the point of these lines, there was never any Catholic effort, qua Catholic, to defend slavery. We have said there was no Catholic bishop in the South who failed to support the Confederacy. It is equally true that they did not preach about slavery as if it were anything but evil. (An exception is the French-born Bishop Augustin Verot, of Savannah, Ga., who, while defending the institution, was against its abuse, opposed the slave trade, and took great pains to help the negroes both before and after the war. He also gave succor to the Union POWs in Andersonville prison.) Catholic theologians did not try to defend it as very many Protestant preachers did, and as some Fundamentalists, citing biblical verses, still attempt to do. When Ven. Pope Pius IX agreed in 1865 to receive Bishop Lynch as envoy of the President of the C.S.A., the only condition stipulated for his reception was that slavery would not be a subject for discussion. There is no evidence that His Excellency wanted to try to discuss it or that President Davis instructed him to do so.”
This is straight-up false. Potter’s own favorite Confederate bishop, the Reverend Lynch, went out of his way to defend slavery. Another article from the Catholic Historical Review by David Heisser offers a close analysis of a pro-slavery pamphlet Lynch published (in Italian, not English; Heisser analyzes the unpublished English draft of which the Italian is an accurate translation): Lettera di un missionario sulla schiavitu domestica degli Stati Confederati di America. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, a bit of background on Lynch himself: Heisser tells us that “Among Southern bishops Lynch stood out in that he had been brought up in a slaveholding family and was himself the owner of about ninety-five slaves. He and other slaveowning members of his family were benign by the lights of their day, and he characterized the institution as "patriarchal."Slavery was a fundament of Southern civilization, and slaveholding was not uncommon among Catholic bishops, priests, and religious communities. Slaveownership was typical of leading Protestant and Catholic churchmen, who were among its most articulate apologists. Well-to-do Southern Catholics often owned slaves, and prominent laypeople of his diocese aided Bishop Lynch in the acquisition and management of his slaves.” Potter sure didn’t mention any of those little factoids about the noble Bishop Lynch! A few more quotes from the pamphlet ought to embarrass Potter even further:
Lynch claimed that house slaves “receive abundant gratuities, and love to give full evidence of it in the natty hats, the broadcloth coats and the polished boots of the men, the silks and ribbons and flashy jewelry of the women, as they parade the streets or assemble in church on Sundays." (Ibid, 689)
Slaves in the field “receive in strong solid food, fully as much as they can consume, and have something over to satisfy a negro's natural inclination to waste. . . . The work of the [negro] ... is light; his food is abundant; his condition is one of comfort, his necessities in sickness and old age are all provided for." (Ibid, 689)
And of slavery as a whole, Lynch wrote “slaves of the Confederate States may ask to be left in their present state of quiet and content, awaiting the future which God only knows; and not be doomed at once to ruin, if not speedy extermination, for the sake of a mere theory." (Ibid, 694)
So Bishop Lynch claimed that slavery was good for the blacks and that they would be exterminated if emancipated! Not exactly a portrayal of slavery as a social evil. But perhaps Potter would claim that Lynch defended the institution on social-scientific rather than religious grounds, and therefore his original point still stood! Well, unfortunately, the number of Catholic prelates (in the North and South) who justified slavery on Biblical grounds, or portrayed it as not so bad, was greater than zero. Bishop Auguste Martin of Nachitoches, Louisiana, justified slavery via the Curse of Ham in a pastoral letter (Ibid, 694. Heisser also notes that, to their credit, Catholics in Rome took a very dim view of Martin’s exegesis. He also briefly describes a Confederate attempt to win recognition from Britain and France by emancipating the slaves, but by 1864 this was simply their last, desperate gasp, not an indication that the Rebels actually opposed slavery). Archbishop Hughes of New York once claimed that even if slavery were an evil, “it is not an absolute and unmitigated evil; and even if it were anything more than what it is—a comparative evil—there is one thing, that it is infinitely better than the condition in which this people [Africans] would have been, had they not been seized to gratify the avarice and cupidity of the white man.”
So it seems Potter is wrong on just about every count. There was at least one Catholic cleric who tried to justify slavery on Biblical grounds, and several others, such as Archbishop Hughes, claimed it was preferable for blacks to freedom in Africa. That certainly seems like he attempted to portray it as something “other than evil.”
Continuing in his wrongness, Potter claims “Mr. Lincoln’s Proclamation “freed the slaves.” In truth, not one slave was freed because of it. It spoke of “all slaves in areas still in rebellion,” not the ones in parts of the C.S.A. already militarily occupied by Union forces, nor those in border states or anywhere else. Naturally those in “areas still in rebellion” were not freed by the Proclamation. Mr. Lincoln knew they would not be. His purpose, plain and simple, was to incite them into a rebellion of their own. In that he failed.”
More BS, I’m afraid. Old Abe explicitly told the slaves to avoid violence. From the actual text:
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html
“And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.”
As to why Lincoln actually did deliver the proclamation, there is some debate in the historiography concerning the point (from what I understand, Allen Guelzo is one of the Great Emancipator’s most able defenders), but Mcpherson in Battle Cry of Freedom notes that most Union grunts wanted to emancipate the slaves so they would run away from their masters instead of continuing to grow food, make clothes, etc. for the Rebels. They didn’t want the slaves to rise up and butcher Southern women and children, but they did want to make sure Southern soldiers were less well-fed and well-equipped thanks to the labor of slaves. Suddenly the Emancipation Proclamation doesn’t seem so “evil,” eh?
Potter’s nugget #2: “No more than one out of fifteen Southern whites ever owned a slave. That means there were fewer than 350,000 slave-holders in all the South. Yet, about 600,000 soldiers served in the Confederate Armies. If, then, every slave-holder was in uniform — and, certainly, that was not so — there were still hundreds of thousands of soldiers with no personal stake in slavery. So much for the idea that it was to keep their slaves that Southerners fought!”
A vast oversimplification of Southern reasons for fighting—I don’t even need a citation (and there are many) for this; simple reasoning will suffice. Even Southerners who didn’t own slaves had a vested interest in the continuation of the institution, since their relatives might have owned slaves, they realized their economy was based on slavery, just plain old racism, etc. etc. etc.
Nugget #3: “The price of an able-bodied slave at the time of the war was about $1,000 — still a fair-sized sum today and a very large amount of money in the 1860s. How many slave-holders would starve, beat or otherwise abuse such valuable property? Rare was the mistreatment of any slave.”
Again, no citation needed—this is a complete joke. The fact that slaves were so expensive was an incentive to brutalize them. You do not want your 1,000 dollar investment to run away or rebel. What’s a good way of doing that? Terrorizing him into submission! Even a “well-fed” and “well-treated” slave is still a slave; the human desire for freedom transcends material comfort. No matter how “benevolent” a master may be or how fat and happy he thinks his chattel are, some of them will inevitably want to be free. No amount of food or privilege can squelch that desire. The only way a master can keep that desire at bay is to make the slave too frightened, or too fearful of the consequences, to do anything but serve. That, of course, leads to the terror, beatings, and general abuse that always accompanies slavery.
This is not to say that running away or rebellion were the only forms of resistance employed by slaves; historians from Eugene Genovese’s era have noted how slaves were able to “negotiate” various privileges from masters, including, yes, more food, lessened workloads, and all that good stuff. But the stick always and omnipresently accompanied the carrot, and masters always fell back on the whip when such negotiations cut into their profit margins. That slaves were able to ameliorate their conditions, to an extent (and only an extent) speaks well of their cunning, not the “benevolence” of their masters.
Finally, this last nugget does deserve a citation. Potter claims that “most African laborers brought to America as slaves were animists. Nearly all would embrace the Christianity of their eventual owners. Is it likely they would convert to the religion of owners who brutalized them?”
I suppose it’s not very likely, and surprise surprise, the actual history of African American Christianity is a great deal more complicated than Potter implies. I suppose our hero hasn’t read Daniel L. Fountain’s Slavery, Civil War, and Salvation (one of my favorite books from my orals readings last year, by the by). The whole book is excellent and I highly recommend it, but allow me to sum it up: Fountain found, going from WPA slave narratives, church statistics, etc. that genuine religious conviction (as opposed to faking piety for one’s masters or using religious gatherings as an opportunity to escape supervision) was actually fairly rare among slaves before the Civil War. Christianity only really began to attract blacks after the Union won; blacks took the Confederacy’s defeat and their subsequent emancipation as proof that a just God truly existed and that He delivered them from slavery just as He did for the Israelites. To quote Fountain directly on page 5, “it is possible that Christianity never replaced African-based religions until the Christian god delivered the freedom his followers had prophesied. In this way, emancipation, rather than the middle passage, served as the death knell for long-held African religious beliefs.”
So, once again, Potter’s account is precisely the opposite of actual reality. Slavery didn’t Christianize the slaves, emancipation—brought on by those damned boorish Yankees—did.
There are multitudes of other things Potter gets wrong—I’m sure our Latin American specialists would beg to differ on his characterization of the labor regimes in, say Catholic Brazil, as much more “benevolent” than anywhere else—but I’ve already spent nearly 5 thousand words on this stuff. I hope that mass of text has sufficed to satisfactorily demolish the positive picture of the Old South that Garry Potter has tried to paint. I’ll end by repeating a point I implied in the beginning of this essay—in fairness to Potter, his misapprehensions are shared not just by Leeaboos and Southerners but also by many Catholics. From what I’ve heard, Eugene Genovese started to idealize “agrarian” societies after he re-converted to Catholicism, or at least around that time, when he started reading a collection of Southern Agrarian essays titled I’ll Take My Stand.
This is just what I’ve heard, I haven’t read much of Genovese’s work after he converted (I suppose I should sometime). I mention this just to be fair to Potter—as foolish as he may be, he is hardly alone in his foolishness. But that doesn’t let him off the hook—it just makes him the first fool to be addressed in one of my essays. Will there be more? I suppose we’ll have to wait and see.
Notes (in order the authors are mentioned in the text):
Michael Paulson, “Cherishing an Older Catholicism,” The Boston Globe, February 22, 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/22/cherishing_an_older_catholicism/?page=full
Dennis C. Rousey, “Catholics in the Old South: Their Population, Institutional Development, and Relations with Protestants” in U.S. Catholic Historian 24 (4), 2006, pp. 7, 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25156600.
Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South, (Oxford University Press, 1983), 341, 350-360.
Carol Bleser, ed., Secret and Sacred: The Diaries of James Henry Hammond, a Southern Slaveholder (Oxford University Press, 1988), 107. Fun fact: Aside from owning slaves, Hammond also sexually abused his nieces. The “Secret and Sacred” title Bleser gave his diaries came from what he himself wrote on December 9, 1846 (page 173 of Bleser’s book), where he mentions groping their “most secret and sacred regions.” It would be unfair to tar all Southerners, even slaveholding ones, by association with Hammond’s extreme moral failings, but it is equally unfair for Potter to imply that Southerners were any more “moral” than Northerners when their leaders such as Hammond committed such grievous immorality.
David J. Alvarez, “The Papacy in the Diplomacy of the American Civil War” in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25021587, 234, 237, 245-246.
C.R. Vaughan, ed., Discussions by Robert L. Dabney, Vol. IV: Secular (Sprinkle Publications, 1994), 542, 540-541. The book is hard to find, but fortunately the full text of this article appears here: http://www.housechurch.org/miscellaneous/dabney_popery.html
David C. R. Heisser, “Bishop Lynch’s Civil War Pamphlet on Slavery” in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Oct., 1998), p. 686.
Walter G. Sharrow, “John Hughes and a Catholic Response to Slavery in Antebellum America,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2717338, 256.
James Mcpherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (Ocford University Press, 1988, 2003), 557-558.
Daniel L. Fountain, Slavery, Civil War, and Salvation: African American Slaves and Christianity, 1830-1870 (Louisiana State University Press, 2010), 5.
ここには何もないようです