(1866)
to (Archbishop John Mary Odin, C.M.:
New Orleans, Louisiana)
(A list of names): Augustin Beller Fontenot, Olivdel Beller Fontenot, Louis Simon, Augustin Gradenigo, Edemon Simon, J.B. Duruissau, Adrien Duruissau, Gustave Lartique, Omaire Lartique, Evare Lartique, Augustine Ledé, Eujaine Gobbert, M. Lopez, Don Louis Victoriane, Joseph Victoriane, Charles Soines, Issac E. Guillory, Michelle Passailion, Francois Guillory, Jr., Casimir Guillory, Sr.
VI-2-k - List - 1p. - 16mo. - {21}
1866
to (Archbishop John Mary Odin, C.M.:
New Orleans, Louisiana)
First Communicants of 1866: Jeanne Fortier, Uranie Lebeau, Dilia Nivès, Julie Fernandez, Hélène Proctor, Marie Rousset, Henrietta Harvey, Alice Cènas, Berthe Alpuinte, Emilie Durand, Aimée Guerin. Those who will renew: Kate Johnson, Grace Johnson, Anna Carroll. General confession: Aglaé Cantrelle, Mathilde Mioton, Elisa Deblanc, Michael Gaudet, Mary Foley, Julia Bénit, Alice Desforges, Honorine Ballivet.
VI-2-k - List - (French) - 1p. - 12mo. - {23}
(1866)
Beerhorst, Father H(enry):
(Grand Rapids, Michigan)
to Bishop (Peter Paul Lefevere):
(Detroit, Michigan)
Beerhorst sends a mixed-marriage case for Lefevere's consideration. He invites Lefevere to accompany him to Wright for First Communion and Confirmation. There are 47 children in the Catholic school there, 20 children for Communion and 40 for Confirmation. After Easter would be a good time. There is also a Catholic school in Alpine. Father (Bernard J.) Wermers does very well. Their intention is to make a good place of Grand Rapids.
III-2-k - A.L.S. - 3pp. - 12mo. - {5}
(1866)
Beerhorst, Father H(enry):
(Grand Rapids, Michigan)
to Bishop (Peter Paul Lefevere):
(Detroit, Michigan)
He asks Lefevere about Michael Umlor of Alpine and Magdalena Schoenborn of Wright who were married before the Esq(uire). $3000 was subscribed for a new brick church, to cost about $8,000. The people are grateful for Lefevere's visit. Dorr needs a priest of its own; a priest's house is ready. They people agree very well together, except a few from Salem. There are many children around Dorr but they are uninstructed and the parents very ignorant. Beerhorst has also been to Berlin where the people need more time to organize. Beerhorst's health is poor, and a priest should be sent to care for the missions. The Sisters' house is paid for, and the deed for it and that of the schoolhouse will be sent to Lefevere. Father (F. X.) Krautbauer and Mother (Mary) Caroline from (School) Milwaukee have been here to see the place. The Sister (of Notre Dame) will move on August 20. Four Sisters will be sent for only $450.
III-2-k - A.L.S. - 4pp. - 12mo. - {8}
(1866-?)
(Brownson, Orestes A.:
Elizabeth, New Jersey)
to
While occupying the position of a Catholic publicist (Brownson) regarded it his duty to vindicate the liberty which the Church leaves her children. Personally he has always inclined to take the High Church views and his Review defended the most ultra form of ultramontanism. Most of the Bishops regarded him as going too far and he recognized after a while that they were right. He became less intolerant on questions of opinion, but he holds the same view of the papal authority he learned from his teacher, the late lamented Bishop (John B.) Fitzpatrick of Boston, whose equal as a man and a theologian he has never met. Holding the authority of the Pope to be purely spiritual, he had never regarded him in the States of the Church as a temporal prince. He regarded those states as the property of the Church. It was on this view that his article for October, 1860, on the "Rights of the Temporal" was originally written. But on submitting them to the theologian (Father Jeremiah W. Cummings) appointed to supervise his articles before giving them to the press, the latter assured him that he was wrong, that the papal states were held as a temporal principality and by a title in no sense analagous to that by which the Church holds property. (Brownson) yielded and rewrote the article under his direction as it now stands. It gave great offence, it was denounced to the Holy Office, and (Brownson) was called to account for it. His own view was logically consistent with his theory of the papal power; the one he adopted under direction was hardly so. (A portion of the above letter has been obscured by ink blots and another portion has been lost with a corner of the page.)
I-4-c - A. Draft (Incomplete) - 2pp. - 4to. - {5}
(1866)
Brownson, O(restes) A.:
(Elizabeth, New Jersey)
to (Horace Greeley),:
Editor N(ew) Y(ork) Tribune(New York, New York)
Brownson does not like the protective and financial policy of Congress or the tendency towards centralism manifested by some members of Congress and even by (Greeley). The question of suffrage pertains to the states severally and Congress ought not have any jurisdiction over it. Yet when he finds himself compelled to choose between Congress and the President, he cannot prefer the President. Whatever little respects he had for (Andrew Johnson) as the asserter of States Rights has been destroyed by his proceedings and his friends since he started on his late electioneering tour. Brownson has no sympathy with the humanitarianism which Greeley represents and which takes little or no account of geographical lines and national distinctions. One year ago he regarded this as the most immediate danger. Johnson has undeceived him and proved he was wrong in considering (that) the sort of democracy that made the rebellion had been crushed. The men Johnson designates as Northern traitors are the very men who (have) been conspicuous throughout for their loyalty. Brownson does not regard Thurlow Weed, William H. Seward, and the Blairs as the friends of Johnson; they are only using him for their purposes. His real political friends are such men as Garrett Davis, Senator (Willard) Saulsbury, (Daniel W.) V(o)orhees, (George H.) Pendleton, (Clement Laird) Vallandigham, S(amuel) S. Cox, and the Seymours. Johnson has the support of all the Copperheads and all such conservative Republicans as resolved in 1860 to break up the Republican Party because it had elected Abraham Lincoln instead of William H. Seward. He has other objections to Johnson and his policy which, with (Greeley's) permission, he will present to his readers.
I-4-c - A. Draft S. - 2pp. - 4to. - {16}
(1866)
Buffard, Father (Stephen):
(San Antonio, Texas)
to Archbishop (John Mary Odin, C.M.:
New Orleans, Louisiana)
They continue to build. Yesterday the first arch was put over the east corridor. Frank Schmitt is working on it. In San Antonio they keep building new stores; there are more than 600. The river keeps going down, only a foot and a half at its deepest points. Buffard has purchased some wood from Florida at a bargain. The Polish priest is pleased as are the Polish. He has visited Martines and Bandera and has gone to Pana Maria. Father (F.) Bouchu will not leave(?) this year. If Father (J.A.) Faure is still in New Orleans, (Odin) is to tell him not to have so little courage as to return without seeing the Old World. Buffard would like news of Brownsville.
VI-2-k - A.L.S. - (French) - 2pp. - 12mo. - {6}
(1866)
Chocarne, O.P. Father B.:
New Orleans, (Louisiana)
to Archbishop (John Mary Odin, C.M.:
New Orleans, Louisiana)
He accepted the invitation to preach in favor of the asylum for colored orphans (negroes). (Odin) in presenting him to the patronesses urged him to accept. Since then some difficulty about this sermon has arisen. It seems to be feared that the political prejudices of the present would have no echo in the word of the priest pleading the cause of these abandoned children. After (Odin)'s new request today to treat a different subject than the asylum, Chocarne believes it his duty to decline to preach. It would seem like treason to him. (Odin) thinks it would be better to keep silence and wait for a more favorable time. Chocarne is glad that a slight indisposition offers a pretext. He is writing the pastor of the Cathedral a letter he may use as he sees fit. Chocarne will go tomorrow to the home of the pastor of St. John Baptist. He hopes to see (Odin) on his return to take the boat for Memphis.
VI-2-k - A.L.S. - (French) - 4pp. - 12mo. - {2}
(1866?)
Dénecé, Father J(oh)n M(ary) J(osep)h:
Petit Caillou, (Louisiana)
to Archbishop (John Mary Odin, C.M.:
New Orleans, Louisiana)
(Odin) no doubt remembers Marguerite, who prepared Dénecé's meals and gave the land where their little chapel and presbytery are now. She was bought while young by M.H. Thibodaux; she has a little colored blood. Her master, who has been married three times, had two children by Marguerite. At her son's death she gave the land for the church. She still has a daughter whom she wishes to see educated but is too poor to pay her board. She has asked Dénecé to beg (Odin) to have her daughter accepted at the Ursuline Convent or some other convent. The child is 15.
VI-2-k - A.L.S. - (French) - 4pp. - 8vo. - {3}
186(6?)
Kehoe, Lawrence:
New York, (New York)
to (Orestes A. Brownson):
(Elizabeth, New Jersey)
Kehoe asks Brownson to send him a notice of Professor Haldeman's book.
I-4-c - A.L.S. - 1p. - 8vo. - {1}
1866
Maher, Sister M(ary) Teresa:
(Cincinnati, Ohio)
to Archbishop (John Baptist Purcell):
(Cincinnati, Ohio)
She sends a report of the expenditures of the Institute for the year, which money was obtained from various societies. She asks Purcell to show the report to his brother so that he may see what the Sisters of Mercy are doing for the poor. She asks if she has permission to regulate the fasting and abstinence of the Sisters during the coming lent.
II-5-c - A.L.S. - 2pp. - 12mo. - {2}
1866
Oakes Smith E.:
to (Orestes A.) Brownson:
(Elizabeth, New Jersey)
Oakes Smith is grateful for Brownson's letter of the twenty-third of last month. He doesn't know when he will go to Washington. At present his health won't permit the trip. He does not like to hear Brownson doubt his own personal and political influence. Oakes Smith believes Brownson's influence is felt keenly now as it will be so a century hence. He tries to show Brownson his greatness. During his illness Oakes Smith has sought solitude, because sympathy weakens him. His mistake in life has been not to ally himself with some religion. He wishes he had been a good Catholic, because he believes Protestantism is a failure in a religious point of view. When he is better he will visit Brownson. When he goes to Washington, he will ask Brownson for a letter of introduction to Mrs. Doolittle, and to Mrs. (Madeline V.) Dahlgren. Oakes Smith remarks how the country and the people have changed during the last five years.
I-4-C - A.L.S. - 4pp. - 12mo. - {1}
(1866)
One of the people:
Kenockee, Mich(igan)
to Father P(eter) Hennaert:
Detroit, (Michigan)
The Catholics built a new church at Kenockee, Bishop (Peter Paul Lefevere) promised to send a resident priest in 1858, 4 delegates sent to the bishop last winter were promissed a priest by the bishop. Last month the bishop was here and again promised a priest. Last Sunday Father (Lawrence) Kilroy announced from the altar that the bishop told him it was optional for Kilroy to come here or not, also that a buggy be furnished him for sick calls. There were 600 communicants here last year for the Jubilee. The priest of Sarnia promised to speak to the bishop about a priest for them. Kilroy comes about 10 times a year.
III-2-k - A.L.S. - 3pp. - 12mo. - {5}
(1866)
(Brownson, Orestes A.):
(Elizabeth, New Jersey)
to George Bancroft:
Since Brownson's visit to Bancroft, he has received the latter's Volumes 7 and 8 for which thanks are extended. Brownson read in particular the last 3rd of Volume 9, to see how the views of Brownson and Bancroft compared. Brownson would like for Bancroft to read his "American Republic", chapters 8 and 9. Brownson's doubts on the confederation have been dispelled by chapter 26, volume 9. The view of the territorial doctrine is held by both, but overlooked by most democratic writers. Brownson's and Bancroft's views coincide, that the political people of the United States were really but one people before the declaration of Independence. However, Brownson is doubtful if Bancroft holds them to be a unitary or a federation of people. Brownson holds that the people of the United States exist only as people of States united. The convention in which Brownson places the sovereign is a convention of the several states united. The question is whether the states that seceded are still states in the Union or only territories under the union. Bancroft's business, as a historian, was to show how the unity of the American people was developed and constitution formed, whereas Brownson's duty was to establish the fact that the unity exists, and to explain in what it consisted. Having written from different points of view, Brownson does not see where the one view conflicts with the other.
I-4-c - A.L. (partial draft) - 2pp. - 8vo. - {1}
(1866)
(Brownson, Orestes A.):
(Elizabeth, New Jersey)
to (George) Bancroft:
Brownson did not see the notice in the New York Times to which Bancroft refers. Having read Volume 9, Brownson cannot see how he differs from that as expressed by Bancroft. On the question of nationality, Brownson and Bancroft substantially agree. Both hold that sovereignty derives from God through the people, that under God, the people are sovereign and the fountain of all laws and political power. The people are the nation and the nation is not self created. What Brownson is attempting to deny is Hobbe's theory of the state of nature, and Rousseau's theory of the origin of civil society in a social compact and he believes Bancroft does the same. The right to govern is inherent under God, in the proper people as society which is a social right derived not from the consent or agreement of individuals, but from God who gives to society in the social constitution of man the right to institute and maintain government.
I-4-c - A.L. (partial draft) - 1p. - 8vo. - {1}
(1866-67?)
Brownson, O(restes) A.:
Elizabeth, New Jersey
to
The Editor of the N(ew) Y(ork) Times(New York, New York)
(Labelled): "Congress and the Constitution." Brownson is in his own sense of the term a conservative. He is not opposed to the adoption of such amendments as events render necessary, but he insists that they harmonize with the Constitution as originally adopted. The amendment abolishing slavery does not mar its symetry much. The pending amendment is good so far as it relates to the national debt and debts incurred by rebels, but in all other respects it is not framed in accordance with the general principles of the Constitution. It is dictated by the reaction against state sovereignty and tends to centralism. Sovereignty, said the Southern Statesmen, rests in the States severally; sovereignty, say the Radical Statesmen, vests in the people irrespective of state organization. The latter is centralized democracy which the American system abhors. Others say sovereignty rests in the States united. This is what, Brownson thinks, he proved in his work "The American Republic." The distinction between general and particular is founded in nature, is strictly philosophical, and is easy to determine. Whatever measure of the General government that assumes authority in the latter, or whatever measure of a state government that assumes authority in the former is unconstitutional and void. Tried by this standard, which was asserted by (James) Madison in his letter to Edward Everett, published in the North American Review for October 1831, the constitutional amendments proposed or adopted since the Emancipation Proclamation are objectionable. The XIV article gives to Congress an undue and illogical control over citizenship. He passes on to the Civil Rights Bill. Congress has power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," but it has no power to naturalize. There are several other matters, especially the reconstruction measures enacted by Congress, on which he wishes to comment later. Brownson has never approved the executive policy of reconstruction, but so far as (Andrew Johnson) has interposed his veto to save the Federal character of the government, though overruled by Congress, he believes he deserves the thanks of the American people (P.S.) "Private." He wants to send the Times two more communications: one analyzing the Reconstruction measures actually passed by Congress and the other the centralizing measures proposed by (Charles) Sumner and others.
I-4-c - A. Draft S. - 5pp. - 4to. - {10}
(1866-67?)
Brownson, O(restes) A.:
Elizabeth, New Jersey
to
The Editor of the N(ew) Y(ork) Times(New York, New York)
(Labelled): "Congress and the Constitution." It seems to Brownson that some of their statesmen forget that since the collapse of the rebellion the government is acting under the peace powers of the Constitution and not under the war power. He maintains that the work of Reconstruction is a work of peace and not of war. The majority of Congress overlooks this point. Brownson has received several printed circulars from a gentleman in Chicago, who he is told is a very prominent Republican, in which the consolidation of all power in the hands of the General government is advocated and the Radicals are urged to take measures for effacing all state lines and making the state governments mere prefectures. The tendency towards centralism is no less dangerous and revolutionary than the tendency to secessionism. Brownson has never approved (Andrew Johnson's) policy but (Johnson) deserves the thanks of the nation for his efforts to save the rights of the States and the Federal element of our Constitution. All the attempts of Congress to introduce a code of laws for these unrepresented States or territories, which is to regulate their internal affairs or to bind their citizens after restoration, are so many attempts at usurpation and, in Brownson's judgment, null and void from the beginning. Reconstruction is the work neither of Congress nor of the Executive, but is the free act of the electoral people themselves. And who the electoral people are is still settled by the electoral law in force in each state at the time of secession. The project insisted on by (Charles) Sumner and others of requiring the states unrepresented in Congress to make provision for universal school education, as condition precedent to their return to the Union, like the establishment of a Bureau of Education, of Agriculture, and for other matters over which Congress has no Constitutional jurisdiction, betrays a strange forgetfullness of the constitutional division of powers between the General Government and the State Governments. All the talk about guaranties to be given by the late rebel States is founded on a wholly mistaken notion of the Constitution. No guaranties can be exacted of them not exacted equally of all the States. Brownson does not like the reconstruction measures of Congress, but the Southern States may with perfect security reorganize under them, for once they are represented in Congress all the provisions intended to bind them specially fall of themselves.
I-4-c - A. Drafts S. - 11pp. - 4to. - {5}
(1866-67?)
(Brownson, Orestes A.:
Elizabeth, New Jersey)
to
The Editor of the N(ew) Y(ork) Times(New York, New York)
(Labeled): Reconstruction. Heretofore the editor has suffered (Brownson) to offer his views on reconstruction to the public through his columns, and he hopes he will let him do it again. Could he have had his way in May 1865, he would with slight modifications have accepted the agreement between General (William Tec umseh) Sherman and General (Joseph E.) Johnston and suffered the rebel states to have exercised, by the authority of the president as commander of the Army and Navy, the powers of civil government and interim, till Congress had determined the conditions of their restoration. But this is impracti(ca)ble now because a great change has come over them in consequence of their recognition as states in the Union by the Executive.
I-4-c - A. Draft (Incomplete) - 1p. - 4to. - {4}
(1866-7?)
(Brownson, Orestes A.):
(Elizabeth, New Jersey)
to (John) Sherman:
Brownson hopes Sherman will pardon the liberty which he takes as a personal stranger to thank him for his noble and conciliatory speech in the Senate on the concurrent resolution from the House. Brownson is not an admirer of President (Andrew) Johnson nor of what is called his policy and does not believe that the states that seceded should be represented in either house till Congress declares their reconstructed governments loyal and legal state governments. He does not believe that recognition of them by the executive alone or either house of Congress alone entitles them to representation in Congress. The Executive has from the first intended so to carry on the work of reconstruction as to compel Congress to adopt his plan as the less of two —
I-4-c - (A.L. First Draft) - 1p. - 12mo. - {2}