Pius IX and The Confederacy

Tardiff / PIUS IX AND THE CONFEDERACY
Pius IX and the Confederacy: An Irreconcilable Difference

Anthony Tardiff
In 1848, the arrival in Rome of American diplomat Jacob L. Martin established the first
full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican. Pope Pius IX welcomed
Martin and expressed his pleasure at entering diplomatic relations with the United States, for
which he had high regard.1 Less than two decades after Martin's arrival the United States was
divided by a bloody civil war, and the sympathies of the Vatican were sought by the rebelling
Confederate States of America. Pius IX expressed sympathy to the Confederacy, but, while the
Vatican fully recognized and maintained official ties with the Union government, the issue of
slavery prevented the pope from granting that same recognition to the Confederacy.
Leo Francis Stock, The United States at the Court of Pius IX, Catholic Historical Review 3 (April 1923), 106
!1
!2
From the start of the American Civil War, the southern Confederacy attempted to gain
recognition from a number of foreign governments without success. Foreign nations were
reluctant to recognize a revolutionary government, both because the new government might not
last and because its recognition would certainly antagonize the established government against
which the rebellion was directed. Before any European nation could be persuaded to side with
the Confederacy, the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 effectively transformed the war from a
political dispute over the right to self-governance into an ideological struggle over slavery. With
a few strokes of his pen, Lincoln declared the slaves of the American South free and gained for
the Union the moral high ground in the war in the eyes of most of the international community.
The Confederacy was left trying to justify its pro-slavery stance to European nations which had
already abolished the institution.2
The Unions greater claim to the sympathies of foreign nations meant that the
Confederacy received little material aid, and that there was no foreign pressure on the Union to
end the war. It also contributed to a more measurable problem for the Confederacy: immigrant
soldiers willing to fight for the Union. Lured by the promise of a better life in America, young
men from European nations such as the Netherlands, Scotland, and, especially, Ireland poured
into northern ports, where they became eligible to be drafted into the Union army. Union agents
abroad offered attractive incentives to male potential immigrants, such as free passage to the
United States in return for enlistment in the Union army. In a conflict which had devolved into a
war of attrition, immigration gave the Union a manpower advantage. The Confederacy sought to
The British Empire, for example, had abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in general in 1833.
!3
address this problem by asking Fr. John Bannon, a Catholic priest who had served as a
Confederate chaplain, to travel to his native Ireland and do whatever possible to stem the flood
of Irish immigration that was swelling the Union ranks.3
In meetings with Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Secretary of State Judah P.
Benjamin, Bannon proposed a bolder plan: approach the pope for official recognition. As Bannon
told Benjamin, The C[onfederate] S[tates of] A[merica] have neglected to enlist in their favor
the sympathies of a power exerting great moral influence on the peoples & governments of
Europe.4 Recognition from the pope would effectively counteract the Unions ideological
advantage and allow the South to win back some of the moral high ground.5
There was good reason to think that the Vatican might be the first European power to
grant the Confederacy full recognition. Pope Pius IXs personal attitude towards the
Confederacy, as far as could be judged, was a warm one. The Risorgimento6 was in full swing in
Italy, and the pope was under tremendous pressure from the forces of secularism. Traditional
European, Catholic society was crumbling. In such difficult times the United States lack of clear
social order or hierarchy was worrying, and raised questions about its compatibility with the
strictly hierarchical Roman Catholic religion. The aristocratic American South likely seemed a
more traditional society and one more compatible to Catholicism than the motley, chaotic, and
materialist north. In an audience with Odo Russell, a British representative at the Vatican, in July
3
Philip Thomas Tucker, The Confederacys Fighting Chaplain: Father John B. Bannon (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press, 1992), 159.
4
Ibid., 161.
Ibid.
The Risorgimento was the Italian unification movement that resulted in the loss of the papacys temporal power in 1867.
!4
of 1864, Pius IX, after expressing his approval of the increasing Catholic spirit in France and
England, turned to America and, Russell reported,
expressed his deep regret that he could do nothing towards the restablishment of peace between the Federals and the Confederates.
He had written to both presidents, Lincoln and Davis, without
success. At the same time he could not conceal from me that all his
sympathies were with the Southern Confederacy and he wished
them all success. There were, His Holiness added, far more
conversions to Catholicism in the South than in the North.7
In 1863 Fr. Bannon was sent to Ireland, but was granted permission to visit Rome first if
he considered it efficacious to his mission. Bannon did. Once in Rome, he obtained an audience
with Pius IX from which he came away very much encouraged by the popes reception.8 This
was enough for the Confederate government to send a dedicated foreign agent, A. Dudley Mann,
to the Vatican. On December 20, 1863, Mann delivered to the pope a letter from Jefferson Davis,
in which the Confederate president thanked the pope for his earlier letters to the bishops of New
Orleans and New York, asking them to do whatever was within their power to further the cause
of peace. Davis wrote,
I . . . deem it my duty to your Holiness . . . to give this expression

of our sincere and cordial appreciation of the Christian charity and
7
Odo Russell to Earl Russell, July 30, 1864, in The Roman Question: Extracts from the despatches of Odo Russell from Rome
1858-1870, ed. Noel Blakiston (London: Chapman and Hall, 1962), 288.
8
Tucker, 168.
!5
love by which your Holiness is actuated, and to assure you that this
people, at whose hearthstones the enemy is now pressing with dire
oppression and merciless carnage, are now and ever have been
earnestly desirous that the wicked war shall cease; that we have
offered at the footstool of our Father who is in heaven prayers
inspired by the same feelings which animate your Holiness; that
we desire no evil to our enemies, nor do we covet any of their
possessions, but we are only struggling to the end that they shall
cease to devastate our land and inflict useless and cruel slaughter
upon our people, and that we be permitted to live at peace with all
mankind, under our own laws and institutions, which protect every
man in the enjoyment not only of his temporal rights, but of the
freedom of worshipping God according to his own faith.9
Mann was impressed by the popes reaction to the letter and described it in a report to the
Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin:
During [the reading of the letter] I did not cease for an instant to
carefully survey the features of the Sovereign Pontiff. A sweeter
expression of pious affection, of tender benignity, never adorned
the face of mortal man. . . . When the passage was reached wherein
the president states in such sublime and affecting language, We
have offered up at the footstool of our Father who art in heaven
prayers inspired by the same feelings which animated your
Holiness, his deep-sunken orbs, visibly moistened, were upturned
Jefferson Davis to Pius IX, Richmond, September 23, 1863, in Messages and Papers of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy,
1861-1865, ed. James D. Richardson (New York: Chelsea House Robert Hector Publishers, 1966), 571.
!6
toward that throne upon which ever sits the Prince of Peace,
indicating that his heart was pleading for our deliverance from that
ceaseless and merciless war which is prosecuted against us.10
After hearing the letter, the pope told Mann, I should like to do anything that can be
effectively done or that even promises good results, to aid in putting an end to this most terrible
war which is harming the good of all the earth, if I knew how to proceed.11 Mann reported to
Benjamin that he took the opportunity to inform the pope of the Unions immigration policies,
saying that young men were influenced to emigrate (by circulars from Lincoln and Company to
their numerous agents abroad) ostensibly for the purpose of securing high wages, but in reality to
fill up the constantly depleted ranks of our enemy, and but that for foreign recruits the North
would most likely have broken down months ago in the absurd attempt to overpower the
South.12 Mann described the immigrants to the Holy Father:
. . . those poor unfortunates were tempted by high bounties

amounting to $500, $600, and $700 to enlist and take up arms
against us; that once in the service they were invariably placed in
the most exposed points of danger in the battlefield; that in
consequence thereof an instance had occurred in which almost an
10
Mann to Benjamin No. 67, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 592. It is worth noting the difference in
rhetoric employed by the Union and Confederate agents in the Vatican. The direct, factual approach of the Unions Minister
Resident, Rufus King, is reflected in his letters to Secretary of State Seward: he presents facts with a minimum of interpretation,
and what interpretation he does give rests solidly on those facts. It is only in personal, not official, letters to his old friend Seward
that King's writing becomes any less formal and direct. The rather florid language of Confederate agents A. Dudley Mann and J.
T. Soutter reflect a different approach; their letters are heavy on interpretation and their interpretations rest largely on personal
impressions.
11
Ibid., 593.
12
Ibid.
!7
entire brigade had been left dead and wounded on the

ground. . . .13
The popes reaction pleased Mann. He reported to Benjamin, His Holiness expressed utter
astonishment, repeatedly throwing up his hands at the employment of such means against us and
the cruelty attendant upon such unscrupulous operations.14 The pope promised to write a reply
to Jefferson Davis of such a character that it may be published for general perusal.15
The promised letter was delivered to Mann by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal
Antonelli on December 8, 1863. Addressing Davis as Illustrious and Honorable Sir, Jefferson
Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, the pope wrote,
. . . it has been very gratifying to us to recognize . . . that you and

your people are animated by the same desire for peace and
tranquillity. . . . O, that the other people also of the States and their
rulers, considering seriously how cruel and deplorable is this
intestine war, would receive and embrace the counsels of peace
and tranquillity. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent
prayers to beseech God, the Best and Highest, and to implore him
to pour out the spirit of Christian love and peace upon all the
people of America, and to rescue them from the great calamities
with which they are afflicted, and we also pray the same most
13
Ibid. Mann may be referring to the Irish Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Thomas Francis Meagher, which was
decimated at Fredericksburg.
14
Ibid, 593-4.
15
Ibid., 594.
!8
merciful Lord that he will illumine your Excellency with the light
of divine grace, and unite you with ourselves in perfect charity.16
Delighted with the letter, Mann enthusiastically wrote to Benjamin, In the very direction
of this communication there is a positive recognition of our government. It is addressed to the
Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
Thus we are acknowledged by as high an authority as this world contains to be an independent
power on earth.17 In Manns interpretation the address of a letter, particularly so formal a letter,
was indicative of the way the sender viewed the recipient.
Benjamin, however, disagreed. He replied to Mann, As recognition of the Confederate
States we cannot attach to [the letter] the same value that you do.18 Benjamin noted the fact that
the pope had spoken of the war as an intestine war rather than a war between two distinct
nations showed that he did not think of the Confederacy as a separate nation. Benjamin wrote,
This phrase of his letter shows that his address to the President as President of the Confederate
States is a formula of politeness to his correspondent, not a political recognition of fact.19 An
examination of this letter published for general perusal bears out that it was not meant as an
indication that the pope was choosing sides. It was certainly a sympathetic letter, expressing a
desire for peace that the pope shared with the Confederate president. However, there is nothing
in the letter wishing victory for the Confederacy or condemning the Union. Only the confusion
16
Pius IX to Jefferson Davis, Rome, December 3, 1863, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 603-604.
17
Mann to Benjamin No. 69, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 602.
18
Benjamin to Mann No. 11, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 622
19
Ibid, 623.
!9
over the semantics of the salutation prevent the letter from being no more than a footnote in the
relations of the Vatican to the Confederacy.
A year later, in December of 1864 (when the Southern cause had deteriorated to the point
that foreign help was the only way to avoid defeat), Confederate representative J.T. Soutter met
with the pope and made a direct request for recognition. During the audience pope told Soutter
that he had ordered prayers for peace in America to be said in all his churches, and he himself
made it a special subject of prayer daily in his private devotions.20 Interpreting this professed
desire for peace as support of the Confederate cause, Soutter pressed for an act of recognition.
He wrote to his superiors,
I thanked him warmly for this renewed interest in our cause, and
added that we felt sure he would let no opportunity escape him of
using his mighty powers with the other sovereigns in Europe in
disposing them to recognize our Government as an independent
power. He rejoined that he would not like to meddle in the affairs
of other Governments by a direct action, but that it would give him
pleasure to state to the various Ambassadors here what his mind
was on the subject of American affairs, that his great desire was to
see an end of the horrid war now desolating America, and nothing
he could do to obtain that objective would be left undone. I availed
of the occasion to reiterate what the President said in his late
message, that recognition was all we asked, that we did not expect
nor desire intervention, and that nothing could more effectually
20
J.T. Soutter to John Slidell, Rome, December 5, 1864, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 692
!10
contribute to the cessation of the war than an acknowledgment of

our independence by the leading European powers.21
There are a couple points of interest in this exchange. The popes intention of telling the
various Ambassadors . . . what his mind was on the subject of American affairs looks promising
for the Confederacy at first, but that promise is immediately dashed when the pope goes on to
state what is on his mind: that his great desire was to see an end of the horrid war. Despite
Soutters request, it is clear that the pope will not undertake even in private conversation with
ambassadors to state a preference for the Confederacy (nor does he state such a preference even
to Soutter), but will only communicate a general desire for peace. This is in contrast to the
apparent pro-South leaning that was expressed to Odo Russell, the British ambassador, six
months earlier. It seems that the pope became more reserved about the Confederacy even in his
personal capacity as the war progressed. It is worth noting that at this point, less than five months
out from Appomattox, the pope is essentially being asked by his intervention to prolong the war
certainly not an effective plea given his desire for an end to the conflict.
Indeed, it was in his earlier appeal to the cause of peace that Jefferson Davis found the
best angle to approach the pope. The pope repeatedly articulated a concern for peace to
representatives from both sides of the conflict. In June of 1864 he expressed his hope to Rufus
21
Ibid.
!11
King, the Union Minister Resident to the Vatican,22 that the continued success of the federal
armies would lead to a quick end to the war23 interesting in light of his words to Odo Russell
the following month. The pope even offered his services as a mediator. King wrote to the U.S.
Secretary of State Seward that the pope had told him that He could see . . . that the interference,
or proffered mediation of powerful nations, like England, or France, would not be acceptable to
the United States; and that such an offer could only come from some inferior power.24 Since the
Vatican had only a tiny army and no navy, the pope thought its mediation would be seen as
disinterested by the Americans.25
Given his desire for peace, it makes sense that the pope did not act as recommended by J.
T. Soutter and grant the Confederacy recognition. It is possible and even probable that the pope
simply did not agree with Soutter that this would help bring about a quick end to the conflict.
There is also the popes own statement that he had no desire to meddle in the affairs of other
governments. It is notable, too, that the popes relations to the government of the United States
22
Rufus King was a West Point graduate who had served under Captain Robert E. Lee as an engineer in the construction of Fort
Monroe in the early 1830s. He left the army in 1836, and for a time was editor of the Milwaukee Sentinel, in which position he
supported his good friend William H. Seward in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860, and when that failed
supported Lincoln in the ensuing presidential elections. Due to his friendship with Seward, who became Secretary of State under
Lincoln, King was appointed Resident Minister to the Papal States in 1861, a position his son called "the most delightful post in
the diplomatic service of the United States." King was in New York preparing to embark on a steamer to Rome when the Civil
War broke out. He returned Washington and received permission to organize the Wisconsin Volunteers, and was shortly promoted
to commander of a division. Unfortunately for King, confusion over orders at the Union defeat at the Battle of Second Manassas
threw a stigma over his military service, and though Lincoln and Seward were satisfied that King had made no blunder, for
political reasons no official inquiry was sought, since it would have discredited King's superior, General Pope. Seward instead
asked that King resign his commission and take the post as diplomat at the Vatican. King, whose health was bad after the incident
at Second Manassas, was happy to comply, and served as Resident Minister to the Papal States from the fall of 1863. He was
Resident Minister when the Confederacy began its overtures to the Vatican, and served until 1867, when the abolition of the
temporal power of the Papacy, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment from prominent senators, caused the United States to end it
diplomatic mission to the Vatican. See Gen. Charles King, "Rufus King: Soldier, Editor, and Statesman," Wisconsin Magazine of
History, IV (June 1921), 371-381
23
Rufus King to William Seward No. 15, in United States Ministers to the Papal States: Instructions and Despatches,
1848-1868, vol. 1 of American Catholic Historical Association Documents, ed. Leo Francis Stock (Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University Press, 1933), 307.
24
25
Ibid.
Leo Francis Stock, The United States at the Court of Pius IX, Catholic Historical Review 3 (April 1923): 117.
!12
was very good, and if he did indeed have a greater sympathy for the Confederacy likely, at
least in some respects, though not certain given the conflicting nature of his statements to the
representatives from both sides he still had a cordial respect for the Union government, which
was officially recognized by the Vatican, and he had regular and friendly audiences with the U.S.
Minister Resident, Rufus King.26 But in addition to these reasons there is one more reason, the
weightiest and the most influential: slavery.
The history of the Catholic Church and slavery is sometimes misunderstood. It is
sometimes stated that the first papal condemnation of slavery was Pope Leo XIIIs 1890
encyclical Catholicae Ecclesiae, and that the Church was playing catch up, condemning
slavery only after the worlds opinion had turned almost unanimously against the institution. In
fact, Leo XIIIs encyclical was a reaffirmation of a long-standing condemnation of racial slavery
that dates back to the 15th century.
While slavery had been extensively practiced in the ancient world and in early medieval
Europe, it had almost entirely disappeared from western Europe by 1200. In the fifteenth century
slavery in its modern form began to be practiced by European nations which were expanding
beyond their borders into the Americas and Africa. In January of 1435 Pope Eugene IV, horrified
at the way residents of Canary Islands (which had earlier in the century been occupied by the
Spanish) were being captured and brought to Europe as slaves, addressed the matter in his papal
bull Sicut Dudum. He demanded that the enslavement stop and ordered all enslaved natives be
26
The mutual recognition of the two nations meant that the Union had a Minister Resident, Rufus King, who had regular
meetings with Cardinal Antonelli and with the pope himself. Confederate agents to the Vatican were politely and thoughtfully
received, but not in an official capacity as accredited ambassadors of a recognized government, as Cardinal Antonelli assured
Rufus King. See King to Seward No. 19, in Stock, United States Ministers to the Papal States, 314
!13
released within fifteen days of the publication of the bull. The consequence for those who did not
comply, or who enslaved any native in the future, was automatic excommunication. This was the
first broadside fired by the Church in a fight against racial slavery.27
The fight was a long one. The discovery of the New World and the quick expansions into
it accomplished by European nations, especially Spain, saw the spread of slavery under the
justification that the American natives were either subhuman and therefore it was permissible to
enslave them, or they were fully human and therefore should be enslaved in order that they might
be placed in a position in which they would be likely to convert to Catholicism.28 In response
Pope Paul III wrote the bull Sublimus Deus in 1537, which in powerful and unequivocal
language attempts to correct these errors. Saying that these attitudes came from the enemy of
the human race, i.e. Satan, and were motivated by avarice, Paul III wrote that the Indians
themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been
made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith. He used his Apostolic authority to decree and
declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples even though they
are outside the faith who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been
deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. The natives are not
to be reduced to slavery but should be converted by preaching and the example of a good
life.29 Sublimus Deus clearly applies not only to the Spanish and those they enslaved, but also to
all who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians. While Sicut Dudum was
27
Rev. Joel S. Panzer, The Popes and Slavery (New York: Alba House, 1996), 7-10.
28
Ibid., 15.
29
Pope Paul III, Sublimus Deus (Papal bull), in Panzer, The Popes and Slavery, 80-81.
!14
concerned primarily with the enslavement of Christians, which the Canarios were, Sublimus
Deus exhibits a specific concern for those outside the faith, and in its language contradicts the
notion of racial inequality that was used as justification for slavery.
Unfortunately, these teachings were largely ignored by many Catholics, and slavery
continued to be practiced by Catholics and even condoned by clergy. Of note are the bishops of
the American South, who hastened to interpret Pope Gregory XVIs 1839 bull In Supremo as
being simply a condemnation of the slave trade, not of slavery itself, despite such clear
antislavery sentiment as the warning that . . . no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil
of their possessions, or force into slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.30 Bishop John
England of Charleston used this narrow interpretation of the document to fight the accusations of
southerners that Catholics were associated with the abolitionist movement.31
Bishop England knew that associating Catholicism with abolitionism would have been a
bad political move in the American South. An examination of the Declarations of Causes, the
documents created by several southern states as official statements of their reasons for seceding
from the Union, makes it clear that the primary issue motivating the separation was slavery.
These documents accuse the federal government of being abolitionist and include justifications
of slavery to show the need for separation from such a government. A quote from the Declaration
of Causes of Texas will suffice to show the tone
:
30
31
Pope Gregory XVI, In Supremo (Papal bull), in Panzer, The Popes and Slavery, 101.
Panzer, The Popes and Slavery, 67-68. In many ways this rejection by the clergy of clear papal teachings parallels the current
rejection by many Catholics, including clergy, of clear papal decrees on such subjects as abortion and contraception.
!15
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith

and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations,
the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party,
now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of
those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these
Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of
African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of
all men, irrespective of race or color a doctrine at war with
nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation
of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the
abolition of negro slavery throughout the Confederacy, the
recognition of political equality between the white and negro races,
and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us,
so long as a negro slave remains in these States.32
Slavery was the cause and catalyst of the war, the primary reason for the secession and
the resulting conflict. Confederate envoys attempting to gain support and recognition abroad,
however, knowing the antipathy with which most Europeans viewed slavery, were careful to
couch their revolt in terms of the right of each state to self-determination. When slavery was
brought up, southerners generally accused the north of being too hasty to free the slaves. Rufus
King wrote to Secretary of State Seward that in an interview with Cardinal Secretary of State
Antonelli, Antonelli had told him,
32
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union, Feb. 2, 1861, in Journal of the
Secession Convention of Texas 1861, Edited From the Original in the Department of State, Ernest William Winkler. (Austin:
Texas Library and Historical Commission, 1912), 61-65.
!16
He had been repeatedly assured by Southern gentlemen that they,

too, desired to abolish Slavery; but that while they thought it was
necessary, as a preliminary step, to educate the Slaves for Freedom
and to bestow that boon upon them as fast as they were fit for it,
the North desired to precipitate matters and to emancipate, at a
blow, all the slaves of the South, despite the risk of an internecine
war of the races.33
This report provides a good example of the kind of rhetoric that Southern gentlemen employed
when speaking to Vatican officials: they, too desired an end to slavery, but they wanted to go
about it in a less hasty and more thought-out manner. Confederate agent Mann told the pope
that true philanthropy shuddered at the thought of the liberation of the slave in the manner
attempted by Lincoln and Company; that such a procedure would be practically to convert the
well-cared-for civilized negro into a semibarbarian. . .34 When the pope asked if the
Confederacy were then willing to consider a gradual emancipation, Mann responded that the
subject of slavery was one over which the Government of the Confederate States, like that of the
old United States, had no control whatsoever; that all ameliorations with regard to the institution
must proceed from the States themselves, which were as sovereign in character in this regard as
were France, Austria, and any other Continental power,35 and stated that if, indeed, African
slavery were an evil, there was a power which in its own good time would doubtless remove that
evil in a more gentle manner than that of causing the earth to be deluged in blood for its sudden
33
King to Seward No. 19, in Stock, United States Ministers to the Papal States, 314.
34
Mann to Benjamin No. 67, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 591.
35
Ibid., 593.
!17
overthrow.36 These words failed to demonstrate a willingness on the part of the Confederate
government to abolish slavery. The Union, on the other hand, could play its moral high card by
pointing to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Interestingly, though, at its release the Emancipation Proclamation was seen by many as a
desperate act by a failing nation to gain moral legitimacy and turn public opinion in its favor.
Two major publications of Rome, LOsservatore Romano, the Vaticans own semiofficial daily
paper, and the Jesuit paper Civilt Cattolica, favored the Union cause up until the release of the
Emancipation Proclamation, and then swung firmly in favor of the Confederacy not because
they approved of slavery, but because they viewed the Emancipation Proclamation as
underhanded and insincere. In their 1971 article Roman Views on the American Civil War,
Anthony B. Lalli and Thomas H. OConnor describe these publications reactions:
[They] expressed revulsion not only at what Lincoln did in the

Emancipation Proclamation (instead of attacking the institution of
slavery per se, he instigated a slave uprising), but also at the
hypocritical way in which he did it. In scornful tones,
LOsservatore described the actions of the American president who
grandly announced the freedom of the slaves in the states where he
was not recognized, while meekly agreeing to allow slavery to
continue in the border states where his authority still stood. . . . the
Emancipation Proclamation was simply an attempt by the Lincoln
36
Ibid.
!18
administration to gain by trickery what it could not obtain through

military victory.37
As the war went on, these newspapers accused Lincoln of trying to establish a dictatorship. They
pronounced the failure of democracy in America and greeted any news of a Union victory with
frank disbelief, claiming that such news came from a Union press which was thoroughly under
Lincolns control and which could not be trusted.38
Despite the general feeling that the Emancipation Proclamation was a blatant attempt to
gain moral superiority, the fact could not be discounted that, regardless of its motives, the North
had decisively acted against the institution of slavery. While the South made vague assurances
that they, too, disapproved of slavery and then avoided the issue by claiming states rights, the
Union had made its allegiance to the cause of abolition clear. Whatever the sentiments of various
clergy or of popular Roman opinion, the official stance of the Vatican could not favor the
Confederacy.
This was made explicit by the pope himself. Pius IX told Rufus King that as much as he
deprecated the War and desired that it might cease, he could never, as a Christian and the head of
the Catholic Church, lend any sanction of countenance, to the system of African Slavery.39 King
was repeatedly assured by both the pope and Cardinal Antonelli that there was no danger of the
37 Anthony
B. Lalli, S.X., and Thomas H. OConnor, Roman Views on the American Civil War, Catholic Historical Review, 57
(April, 1971), 32-33.
38
39
Ibid., 38.
!19
Vatican granting recognition to the Confederacy. The South would have to content itself with
polite papal letters; there would be no official papal recognition of the Confederate government.
Pope Pius IXs friendliness to Jefferson Davis and his overriding concern for peace
continued to be manifest after the war. In November of 1865, King wrote to Seward that in a
recent audience, The Pope had many questions to ask about the progress of events in the United
States and expressed great satisfaction at the return of Peace and the reconstruction of the Union.
. . . He warmly approved the clemency which had been shown to the rebel leaders and hoped, he
said, that Jefferson Davis would also receive the Executive pardon.40 When Jefferson Davis was
imprisoned (from 1865 to 1867), the pope sent Davis a photograph of himself, a crown of thorns,
and a biblical quote: Come unto me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you
rest (Matthew 11:28).41 This has contributed to the idea that the pope gave legitimate
recognition to Davis role as president of the Confederacy, and by extension to the Confederacy
itself. However, the relations between the pope and the United States government of which he is
supposed to have been an enemy were warm before, during, and after the war. In the same time
period that the pope sent the famous items to Jefferson Davis, there was brief talk of the pope
choosing the United States as his residence should he be forced to flee Rome by the events of the
Italian Risorgimento (and an American ship was sent to Civita Vecchia in case it was needed for
40
41
Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America: A Memoir By His Wife Varina Davis,
(Baltimore: The Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, Inc., 1990), Vol. 2, 448.
!20
the purpose).42 Further, John H. Surrat, a suspected member of the assassination plot that killed
Lincoln, who had secretly joined the papal Zouaves, was arrested by the Vatican even before
such a request had been made by the American government. This was despite a long-standing
Vatican policy not to extradite criminals who would probably face the death penalty,43 and was
accomplished with the approval of his Holiness . . . with the view to show the disposition of the
Papal Government to comply with the expected request of the American authorities.44
Piux IX was a very public religious and political figure whose actions were determined
by his role and duties as the head of the Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that while
officially the pope was friendly and open to both sides, his personal attitude toward the
Confederacy may have been warmer than his public office allowed him to express. The pope,
undergoing all the pressures of the Risorgimento, would almost certainly have agreed with the
Roman papers discussed earlier, or even been influenced by their interpretation of the events
transpiring an ocean away. He may well have viewed the South as a more propitious
environment for the survival of the Catholic faith in an increasingly hostile world. Despite this,
the pope did not condemn nor make an enemy of the official government of the United States.
42
King wrote to Seward in November of 1866, Within the past few days the subject has been brought specially to my notice by
intimations I have received from several officials of the Papal Government, that the presence of an American ship of war at Civita
Vecchia was highly desirable and that if the Pope felt compelled to abandon Rome he might seek a refuge in the United States
[sic]. . . . I cannot but think, from these and other similar indications, that this prospect of going to America is seriously
entertained by a portion, at least, of the Popes most trusted friends and counselors and I know that his Holiness himself has
spoken of it more than once and in terms that seemed to imply approval (King to Seward No. 68, in Stock, United States
Ministers to the Papal States, 394). Kings request for a ship was backed by American Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustav
Fox, and the Swatara was sent to the Civita Vecchia, where it remained for some time, ready if needed. See Leo Francis Stock,
The United States at the Court of Pius IX, Catholic Historical Review 3 (April 1923): 116.
43
44
Some surprise, perhaps, may be expressed that Suratt was arrested by the Papal authorities before any request to that effect
had been made by the American government. This was alluded to in a conversation on the subject with Cardinal Antonelli and the
Minister of War, on Friday last. Both have me to understand that the arrest was made, with the approval of his Holiness and in
anticipation of any application from the State Department, as well as for the purpose of placing Suratt in safe custody, as with the
view to show the disposition of the Papal Government to comply with the expected request of the American authorities. 44 King
to Seward No. 15, in Stock, United States Ministers to the Papal States, 392.
!21
Furthermore, he withheld the recognition that would have been a great aid to the Confederacy.
He did this for the stated reason of never, as a Christian and the head of the Catholic Church,
lend[ing] any sanction of countenance, to the system of African Slavery. While Pius IX was
happy to write a letter expressing his agreement with Jefferson Davis professed desire for peace
and his deprecation of the suffering and horrors of the war, his address of Davis as President of
the Confederate States of America was a polite use of Davis title and function, not a
recognition of the validity of the government over which Davis presided. The ideological
difference between the Vatican and the Confederacy over the issue of slavery was irreconcilable,
and precluded the pope from granting any kind of official recognition or support to the rebel
government.

Pius IX and The Confederacy

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pius IX and The Confederacy

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Tardiff / PIUS IX AND THE CONFEDERACY