Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Foreign Conspiracy Against The Liberties of The United States (1835) - Samuel Morse

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous CYqPl0q
    sam morse was right

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Foreign Conspiracy Against The Liberties of The United States (1835) - Samuel Morse

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous CYqPl0q
    79 views2 pages
    sam morse was right

    Original Title

    Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States (1835) - Samuel Morse

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    sam morse was right

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views2 pages

    Foreign Conspiracy Against The Liberties of The United States (1835) - Samuel Morse

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous CYqPl0q
    sam morse was right

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM

    VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES


    Howard Gillman • Mark A. Graber • Keith E. Whittington

    Supplementary Material

    Chapter 5: The Jacksonian Era—Individual Rights/Religion

    Samuel Morse, Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States (1835)1

    Samuel Morse (1791–1872) was a successful painter, the inventor of the telegraph, and an active Nativist.
    In 1834, he published a series of anti-Catholic essays in a New York newspaper under the pen name “Brutus.”
    Those essays were widely reprinted in the religious press and collected together in a book. Like many Nativists,
    Morse maintained that Catholic immigration posed a threat to the American republic. The Foreign Conspiracy
    combined a detailed critique of illiberal church-state combinations in Catholic countries with warnings that
    Catholics in the United States had similar ambitions. Morse rejected establishing a unified Protestant political party
    as inviting the union of church and state that he sought to avoid. He warned against the use of “unlawful means”
    against Catholics. The best “weapons of Protestantism” were education and an active religious press that countered
    Catholic influence and denounced the political implications of “Popery.”
    Morse in the passage below asked, “What is religious liberty?” How did he define religious liberty? Why
    did he believe Catholics a threat to republican values and religious liberty? Why did he believe Protestantism
    embodies republican values?

    ...
    No one of the Protestant sects owns any head out of this country, or is governed in any of its concerns
    by any men, or set of men, in a foreign land. All ecclesiastical officers are nominated and appointed, or
    removed by the people of the United States. . . . Our Episcopalians appoint their own bishops without
    consulting the church of England; our Presbyterians are entirely independent of the church of Scotland;
    and our Wesleyan Methodists have no ecclesiastical connection with the disciples of Wesley in the old
    world. But how is it in these respects with the Catholics. The right of appointing to all ecclesiastical offices
    in this country, as everywhere else, is in the Pope. . . . All the bishops, and all the ecclesiastics down to the
    most insignificant officer in the church, are, from the genius of the system, entirely under his control.
    ...
    And to whom do these leaders look for their instructions? Is it to a citizen, or body of citizens
    belonging to this country; is it to a body of men kept in check by the ever jealous eyes of other bodies
    around them, and by the immediate publicity which must be given to all their doings? No, they are men
    owning no law on this side of the ocean; they are the Pope and his Consistory of Cardinals, following the
    plans and instructions of the imperial cabinet of Austria,—plans formed in the secret councils of that
    cabinet, instructions delivered in secret, according to the modes of despotism, to their obedient officers,
    and distributed through the well disciplined ranks in this country, to be carried into effect in furtherance
    of any political designs the Austrian cabinet may think advantageous to its own interests. And will these
    designs be in favor of liberty? With a party thus formed and disciplined among us, who will venture to
    say that our elections will not be under the control of a Metternich, and that the appointment of a
    President of the United States will not be virtually made in the Imperial Cabinet of Vienna, or the
    Consistory of Cardinals at Rome? Will this be pronounced incredible? It will be the almost certain result
    of the dominion of Popery in this country.

    1 Excerpt taken from Brutus [Samuel Morse], Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States (New York:

    Leavitt, Lord & Co., 1835).

    Copyright OUP 2013


    . . . What is religious liberty? Is it merely a phrase to round a period in a fourth of July oration? Is
    it a dazzling sentiment for Papists to use in blinding the eyes of the people, while they rivet upon them
    their foreign chains of superstition? Is it a shield to be held before Infidels, from behind which, they may
    throw their poisoned shafts at all that is orderly and fair in our civil as well as religious institutions? Or is
    it a prize above all price, that heaven-descended gift to the world, for which . . . we contended in our war
    for independence, and which we are bound by every duty to ourselves . . . to guard with the most jealous
    care? And has it ever occurred to Christians that this duty of guarding religious liberty in a more special
    manner devolves on them? Who but the religious community appreciate the inestimable value of
    religious liberty? Are their interests safe in the hands of the infidel, who scoffs at all religion, and uses his
    civil liberty to subvert all liberty? Is it safe in the hands of imported radicals and blasphemers? Is it safe in
    the hands of calculating, selfish, power-seeking politicians? . . .
    We cannot be too often reminded of the double character of the enemy who has gained foothold
    upon our shores, for although Popery is a religious sect, and on this ground claims toleration side by side
    with other religious sects, yet Popery is also a political, a despotic system, which we must repel as
    altogether incompatible with the existence of freedom. . . .
    It is asked, how can we separate the characters thus combined in one individual? How can we
    repel the politics of a Papist, without infringing upon his religious right? I answer, that this is a difficulty
    for the Papists, not for Protestants to solve. If Papists have made their religion and despotism identical,
    that is not our fault. Our religion, the Protestant religion, and Liberty are identical, and liberty keeps no
    terms with despotism. . . . Shall political heresy be shielded from all attack, because it is connected with a
    religious creed? Let Papists separate their religious faith from their political faith, if they can, and the
    former shall suffer no political attack from us. . . .
    ...
    If they cannot, or will not, let them not complain of religious persecution, or of religious
    intolerance, if this republican people, when it shall wake to a sense of danger that threatens its blood-
    bought institutions, shall rally to their defense with some show of indignation. Let them not whine about
    religious oppression, if the democracy turns its searching eye upon this secret treason to the state, and
    shall in future scrutinize with something of suspicion, the professions of those foreign friends, who are so
    ready to rush to a fraternal embrace. . . .

    Copyright OUP 2013

    You might also like