For more than two hundred years American Catholics have struggled to reconcile their national and religious values. In this incisive and accessible account; distinguished Catholic historian Jay P. Dolan explores the way American Catholicism has taken its distinctive shape and follows how Catholics have met the challenges they have faced as New World followers of an Old World religion. Dolan argues that the ideals of democracy; and American culture in general; have deeply shaped Catholicism in the United States as far back as 1789; when the nation's first bishop was elected by the clergy (and the pope accepted their choice). Dolan looks at the tension between democratic values and Catholic doctrine from the conservative reaction after the fall of Napoleon to the impact of the Second Vatican Council. Furthermore; he explores grassroots devotional life; the struggle against nativism; the impact and collision of different immigrant groups; and the disputed issue of gender. Today Dolan writes; the tensions remain; as we see signs of a resurgent traditionalism in the church in response to the liberalizing trend launched by John XXIII; and also a resistance to the conservatism of John Paul II. In this lucid account; the unfinished story of Catholicism in America emerges clearly and compellingly; illuminating the inner life of the church and of the nation. In this lucid account; the unfinished story of Catholicism in America emerges clearly and compellingly; illuminating the inner life of the church and of the nation.
#640127 in Books William W Freehling 2002-11-14Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 5.30 x .60 x 7.90l; .45 #File Name: 0195156293256 pagesThe South vs the South
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. A most persuasive argumentBy Shelia GreenDr. Freehling argues; most persuasively; that dissension from within the states that should have comprised the Confederacy was of greater effect in defeating it than any other factor. He points especially to the failure of the Confederacy to "jell" in Kentucky; where Gen. Bragg had to take back to Tennessee the rifles he had planned to distribute to the thousands who should have answered the call.He is the first historian of this period in whose work I have found an explanation of the term "filibustering" in its Civil War context. "Filibustering fantasies remained alive only on the Union side by 1863." However; in October of 1863; they must have still been alive. This is certainly the best explanation I have ever read for the Battle of Westport; MO; in which an attempt by Confederate General Price to filibuster there was defeated. This battle occurred less than 50 miles from where I grew up. I have Freehling to thank for the fact that I now understand it; having heard about it many times as a youngster.Many other events you've read about before will suddenly make sense as you read this book. His coverage of the role of blacks in defeating the confederacy is both even-handed and as near definitive as any I've seen.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Short and sweet.By scott p eustisa union military strategist's history-in-response to Du Bois' "black reconstruction"'s framing of the civil war as a general strike against the slave power and the confederacy. From "filibusterers;" to "contraband;" to "garrison;" a by-the-numbers explanation of how a racist Union Army could evolve into an army of liberation by positioning Southerners of all races to fight the confederacy. Short and sweet.7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Important like the rest of his workBy Tony ThomasThis like the rest of Freehling's work is important. In recent years a trend has developed to submerge the central issue of the civil war--slavery--in a myriad of other issues leading to the war and thus diminishing the importance of the war for the US and the World. Part of this slide from confronting the central issue is a tendency to be cosier to attitudes justifying or defending the slaveholders Confederacy in the war.This book is very clear that within the South; the majority of the population did not support the Confederacy and probably a plurality of the South at first and then a majority actively worked to destroy the Confederacy. The Confederacy was not a Southern republic; it was a slaveholders republic.Maryland; Delaware; Kentucky; West Virginia; and Missouri were slave states; but they went with the union. Considerable portions of Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina supported the Confederacy throughout the war; and large groups of white people throughout the South opposed the Confederacy. This book explains that without this opposition; the Union would have never been able to enter the South and attack the Confederacy's military and political centers so easily and would have had to mobilize many more troops were there more Confederate support in the areas the Union liberated. For the most part; the Union liberated rather than occupied the South because as the author explained; African Americans overwhelming supported the union and selflessly through themselves into the war; working first to build defenses; transport materials; tend to the sick; guide the troops; and forage for food and supplies. Later; hundreds of thousands of African Americans volunteered to serve in the Union Army; providing a ready made force available right in the South to support the Union lines against slaveholder terrorism. What I found unique here was his analysis of the 1864 election and his view that had Mclellan; the Democrat who ran against Lincoln won; the South would have still been defeated; although he leaves open whether slavery would have been obliterated the way it was under the Republicans.This is a good read; and not as ponderous as his other work; although his new work is decisive to understanding American history as a whole.
