The Burning of the Charlestown Convent

” At the bottom of the intolerance which led to this outrage was an effective campaign against the Catholics which had been slowing developing the America for some time. By the early 1830′ writers had learned that Americans liked sensationalism in their propaganda just as in their religion and politics” (pg.4).   In 1834 Charlestown, Massachusetts went through a challenging time having face a religious act through a campaign. The famous Convent was burned in the town of Charlestown, with this people around wanted this to prove something to the Catholics and believed that it would help them (Catholics) to stop telling people how to live their lives in a religious matter.

The campaign started back in the early 1830’s against the Catholics. This came about from, “these writers were suspicious of the devotion which the Catholics showed in educating Protestant children while paying little attention to the educational needs of those of their own faith” (pg.5). In regards to the education this included the school of  the Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Massachusetts. When it came to the school of Ursuline, it was triggered around the wealthy daughters of Unitarians that were suspects within the combining of the communities religion. Protestant parents were made to believe that by sending their children to a convent school they risked both the virtue of their daughters and their future of their country”(pg.5).

Through the  differences in religions and the heat against the Catholic a message was sent to burn the infamous burning of the With the Ursuline Convent straight to the ground. “The reaction of the mass of protestants to the burning of the convent in Charlestown indicated that Nativism had reached a where even the destruction  of property, as long as it belonged to Catholics, would not be frowned upon by a majority of the people”.  Through all this no one was found guilty  of the burning of the convent.

Author: Ray Allen Billington

Pages 24 of 4-24

http://www.jstor.org.ruby2.uhv.edu/stable/360143?seq=21&Search=yes&searchText=anti-catholic&searchText=united&searchText=nineteenth&searchText=violence&searchText=century&searchText=states&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26la%3D%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff%26acc%3Don%26vf%3Dall%26bk%3Doff%26pm%3Doff%26jo%3Doff%26ar%3Doff%26re%3Doff%26ms%3Doff%26gw%3Djtx%26Query%3Danti-catholic%2Bviolence%2Bin%2Bnineteenth%2Bcentury%2Bunited%2Bstates%26sbq%3Danti-catholic%2Bviolence%2Bin%2Bnineteenth%2Bcentury%2Bunited%2Bstates%26prq%3Dmormon%2Bwars%26si%3D26&prevSearch=&item=41&ttl=343&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null

Dueling in the South….

Dueling in the South, meant another term for the gentlemen called, ” Men of Honor”. Men in this time would take offense to be called a lire or to not be trusted. White men of south of Antebellum pulled or tweaked one another’s noises. In the article called, “The noise, the Lie, and the Duel in the Antebellum South”, there is a passage that explains the meaning of “noise pulling”. The article reads, “To pull a noise was to communicate a complex set of meanings to an antagonist and an audience. What did the act mean to a man who performed it and witnessed it? The meaning of any act, like the meaning of word or phrases in written or spoken discourse, cannot be understood in isolation in it’s context”.  With all being said, the men in this time felt that they were right and could be trusted, should you think different from these men then  you have disrespected them.  The men seemed to have their noise’s in the air and came across to be very stuck up. Appearance seemed to be everything to white men in this time. Which is way when they lied or were accused of lying they got their nose pulled. Funny to say the least, but it reminds me of back in the day of ponocioh , every time he lied his nose grew! In the Article you read about a man named, Andrew Jackson who lied and got his nose pulled by Naval Officer Lieutenant Randolph. Lieutenant Randolph had been relieved of duty after an investigation had been conducted from the death of purser John B. Timberlake. When the lie was false and he was found not to be at fault he battled in a duel to defend his honor.

Dueling came to play when men felt disrespected and felt that they had to take charge. They would call for a duel and require a shootout and battle. The article quotes the duel saying, “A man says something which another tells him is a lie.  They fight, but whichever is killed the point in dispute remains unsettled.”  The men took the duels as an every day tool and it showed to overpower them. Duels only took place with “white” men, As most commonly you would think this would include slaves, “black” slaves, but no. Slaves like always were looked down on. They were looked at like a piece of property. Therefore, never did a black slave end up in a duel. Slaves were not considered to be trustworthy. And women in this time had there own sense of crimes and violence that they acted upon. To say the least, in the end,In our modern age, solving a problem by asking a dude to step outside is generally considered an immature, low class thing to do.But for many centuries, challenging another man to a duel was not only considered a pinnacle of honor, but was a practice reserved for the upper-classes, those deemed by society to be true gentlemen.

Author: Kenneth S. Greenberg,

Title:“The Nose, the Lie, and the Duel in the Antebellum South,” The American Historical Review 95, no. 1 (Feb. 1990):  57-74.

http://www.jstor.org.ruby2.uhv.edu/stable/2162954?&Search=yes&searchText=united&searchText=19th&searchText=century&searchText=states&searchText=dueling&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Ddueling%2Bin%2Bthe%2B19th%2Bcentury%2Bunited%2Bstates%26Search%3DSearch%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Ddueling%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bunited%2Bstates%26hp%3D25%26acc%3Don%26aori%3Da%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=9&ttl=100&returnArticleService=showFullText&