Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2010, 11:10 AM
 
13,134 posts, read 40,542,407 times
Reputation: 12303

Advertisements

I was doing some reading over the weekend about colonial america and i discovered that Maryland was the only english/dutch colony that wasn't protestant majority but instead a catholic colony and i really couldn't figure out why??

I thought that once Queen Mary I died in 1558 that england was forever a protestant country except for it's puritan years under Cromwell and not catholic ever again.

Thoughts??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2010, 11:53 AM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,857,799 times
Reputation: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 FOOT 3 View Post
I was doing some reading over the weekend about colonial america and i discovered that Maryland was the only english/dutch colony that wasn't protestant majority but instead a catholic colony and i really couldn't figure out why??

I thought that once Queen Mary I died in 1558 that england was forever a protestant country except for it's puritan years under Cromwell and not catholic ever again.

Thoughts??
1) The English, like the Spanish and French, were not in favor of colonies run by those who's faith varied from the home nation. Although they did allow this unlike Spain or France. Religious toleration was not practiced in England and the bulk of the colonists were either Anglicans or Puritans. Neither liked catholics and neither felt a need to permit them to worship or even stay in their colonies.

2) There were few Catholics to emigrate and most who were (in England not Ireland where there was little emigration at the time) happened to be well to do. They had no desire to emigrate and were hardly suited for life in the wilds of America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2010, 12:09 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
10,199 posts, read 17,778,284 times
Reputation: 13903
England was mostly ruled by Protestants after Mary I but actually, the last Catholic monarch in England was James II. Of course he was run out by his own protestant daughters but he was Catholic nonetheless.

I think the practise of Catholicism among the public was mostly tolerated even under Protestant rule. So there was little to no reason for Catholics to leave England.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2010, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,694,851 times
Reputation: 36642
Cecil Calvert, Lord Baltimore, was himself a Roman Catholic. He was Proprietor of the Maryland Colony for 40 years, and established Maryland as a haven for Catholics who felt uncomfortable in protestant colonies. Calvert was appointed by Charles I, whose wife was Roman Catholic.

Cecil's father, George Calvert, Baron Baltimore, was the previous governor of Maryland, appointed by James I, who was also baptized a Catholic. The whole intent of Maryland was to create a Catholic haven in North America.

Baltimore was an Irish peerage, which no doubt carried a presumption of Catholicism.

Both Calverts were previously governors of Newfoundland, which has always had a heavily Irish Catholic element its population.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-26-2010 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2010, 12:27 PM
 
1,446 posts, read 4,586,651 times
Reputation: 991
Despite Maryland being FOUNDED as a haven for Catholics, wasn't that tolerance abolished by 1700? Wasn't Maryland a haven only for a short period of time, especially since the colony was predominately Protestant, despite the initial toleration of Catholics.

Secondly, I am sure that England did not become predominately Protestant overnight. Wasn't it still 50% Catholic during the Elizabethian Era? It did drop to a meager 10% Catholic by the 20th centuy but I am sure that took time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2010, 12:37 PM
 
13,498 posts, read 18,119,444 times
Reputation: 37885
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 FOOT 3 View Post
I was doing some reading over the weekend about colonial america and i discovered that Maryland was the only english/dutch colony that wasn't protestant majority but instead a catholic colony and i really couldn't figure out why??

I thought that once Queen Mary I died in 1558 that england was forever a protestant country except for it's puritan years under Cromwell and not catholic ever again.

Thoughts??
The Church of England, with the sovereign as its head, did remain the state religion. But Catholics did not vanish from the landscape, and during the Stuart era the allegiance of the royal family to the Church of England was often very dubious, and some of the royal family were in fact Catholics. Also, not all members of the aristocracy were sincere in their allegiance to the state church. The Duke of York, the King's brother, was a professed Catholic at the time that England took over the Dutch colony of New Netherland (present-day NYC, etc..) The former Dutch colony was handed to the Duke by the King, and he appointed a Catholic as the first or second governor.

George Calvert was a highly placed politician of this era, and a Catholic. He was granted the proprietership of Maryland colony though he died before he was able to get things underway. His sons organized it as a refuge for Catholics, where there would be religious toleration and separation of church and state.

The Dukes of Norfolk are another example. Theirs is the highest ranking title in the English peerage, yet they have remained Catholic. There is an irony in this as they are at least in a titular sense the organizers of royal coronations, during which the new sovereign is invested as head of the Church of England.

For the most part, though, Catholicism remained a shadow religion after the time of the Stuarts, and the religion of a minority. Pitt the Younger had promised Catholic Emancipation in the U.K. as part of the deal for uniting the parliament of Ireland with that of England. The king, however, felt that such a move violated his cornation oath, and Pitt, unable to deliver on his promise, resigned. In 1829 parliament passed the Catholic Relief Act, which removed many of the obstacles which had formerly blocked Catholics from participating in political and professional life in the U.K. Given that Ireland, unlike England, was overwhelming Catholic the Act had far greater consequences there.

The Church of England remained the state church in England, and its clone, the Church of Ireland, the state church on that island. Paying tithes to the state church remained in force even after Catholic Relief, and in a short number of years there were major disturbances in Ireland over the forced tithes, and they were abolished. The Church of Ireland was finally disestablished in 1869 -71, and was reorganized on a non-government supported basis. The English Reformation had been hugely unsuccessful in attracting a popular following in Ireland, and as a result had since the Tudor era remained a minority religion supported by an unwilling population of Catholics and non-conformist Protestants.

The Calvert family had also established a colony, which received many refugee Catholics, in Newfoundland. And when the family lost control of Newfoundland, its Catholics - a majority of the population, I believe - were subject to the same disabilities as those of Great Britain. When the Catholic Relief Act was passed '29 the Newfoundlers celebrated, believing that it would apply to them. It did not, however, and Newfoundlers embarked on their own struggle to get rid of religious disabilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2010, 05:18 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,857,799 times
Reputation: 641
Quote:
There is an irony in this as they are at least in a titular sense the organizers of royal coronations, during which the new sovereign is invested as head of the Church of England.
My understanding was that the Earl Mowbray (the oldest but not most senior British noble house) did this. The Mowbray's are related to the Howards and were at one time the Dukes of Norfolk but lost that title in the aftermath of the war of Roses. The Howards as a family are catholic (as were many of the senior nobles) but have had protestant members and at least at times they were the actual dukes I think.

Its interesting that they named it Maryland. While probably named for Mary of England, Mary was a key divisor between protestant and Catholics of the time. I had not heard that James I (unlike his two sons) was ever formally baptised a catholic.

Or this could be all wrong, its been a while since I studied the british peerage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 08:44 AM
 
594 posts, read 1,774,892 times
Reputation: 754
As an aside of what has already been said about the founding of Maryland, there was an event that is often passed over. A group of Puritans had established a settlement in Virginia. As Virginia was an Anglican-dominated colony, the Puritans were not looked upon with favor. The spirit of intolerance didn't die in colonial America. In fact, it sometimes flourished.The various religious factions came to America to practice freedom of religion, but with a view of exclusivity for their brand of religion. Baptists, Quakers, Roman Catholics and others were often on tenterhooks under the "tender mercies" of the majority. Maryland and later Roger Williams' Rhode Island were notable exceptions of religious tolerance.

It was this spirit of intolerance that forced the Puritans in Virginia to look elsewhere. Cecilius Calvert, son of Maryland founder George Calvert (the first Lord Baltimore), was an unusually progressive and tolerant man for the age, and he charitably invited the Puritans to settle in Maryland. He may have regretted it later, as the Puritans, for a time, wrested control of the colony's government away.

The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 was an unusually liberal statute for the period. However, even under it's progressive provisions, any overt acts against religion could be subject to severe punishment. For instance, anyone who did not believe in the Trinity could be put to death. Likewise, colonial Virginia had laws on the books that provided a death sentence for habitual absence from church attendance. It's possible that Maryland's Toleration Act may have inspired Thomas Jefferson's Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which became the basis for the first amendment.

The following link gives a review of early Maryland history:

History of the USA > Maryland
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:08 AM
 
13,134 posts, read 40,542,407 times
Reputation: 12303
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
England was mostly ruled by Protestants after Mary I but actually, the last Catholic monarch in England was James II. Of course he was run out by his own protestant daughters but he was Catholic nonetheless.

I think the practise of Catholicism among the public was mostly tolerated even under Protestant rule. So there was little to no reason for Catholics to leave England.
O.K. i gotcha as i thought that Mary I was the last of the catholic monarchs as i thought that James I was a protestant
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2010, 11:29 AM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,857,799 times
Reputation: 641
James I for most of his life was formally an Anglican (a protestant). While he may have sympathised with Catholics he not usually seen as a Catholic king. James the II was the only such after Mary I at least in most histories.

I wonder if Maryland was named for Mary I or Mary the mother of god (who is central in catholic belief but not in protestant).

I read a religious history of the colonies many years ago. It argued that the religious tolerance of Roger Williams has been distorted. In fact he was absolutely fanatical about his faith and refused to associate with those that he considered not religiously moral - including eventually even his wife. He was not I believe thrown out of MA because of his pleas for tolerance and his tolerance reflected his views that everyone (but him) was equally wrong so it made no sense to discriminate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top