Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:20:29.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orestes A. Brownson and Archbishop John Hughes in 1860

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Thomas T. McAvoy C.S.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The greatly increased interest in Orestes A. Brownson will probably restore him to his real importance in the history of Catholicism in the United States. Classifying him as a philosopher has caused him to be seriously neglected, because Catholic philosophers in the United States, since the revival of the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, have been very contemptuous of American philosophers. As a matter of fact, in his own day, before the Thomist revival, his ontologism bewildered even his admirers. Significantly, Brownson did not call himself a “philosopher” but a “publicist” — a very much neglected title in the United States.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1962 , pp. 19 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brownson, Both Orestes A. and Hughes, Archbishop John need new biographies. Despite the interim studies the best biographies so far are Henry F. Brownson's three volumes about his father (New York, 1888–1890)Google Scholar, and Hassard's, John R. G.Life of the Most Reverend John Hughes, D.D. (New York, 1866)Google Scholar.

2 Brownson, Henry F., Orestes A. Brownson's Later Life, 1856 to 1876, (New York, 1900), pp. 67–80Google Scholar.

3 Brownson's Quarterly Review, Third New York Series, I (1860), 36Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., 37.

5 Ibid., 73.

6 Ibid., 182.

7 Ibid., 254–255.

8 Ibid., 302–329.

9 Ibid., 390–391.

10 New York Tablet, July 21, 1860, p. 12; also The Metropolitan Record, July 21, 1860, p. 5.

11 Quoted from McGee's, The Irish American in The Metropolitan Record, 11 10, 1860, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

12 Brownson, Orestes A. to Brownson, Henry F., 11 14, 1860: “It is the best I have ever sent out.” In Brownson, Henry F. papers, University of Notre Dame ArchivesGoogle Scholar.

13 Brownson's Q.R. (1860) I, 408Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., 414–415.

15 At the Fordham commencement, Brownson said the author, Hogan, C. J., was “an Irishman, a Catholic priest and a Professor at a Catholic College.” New York Tablet, 07 21, 1860, p.12Google Scholar.

16 B.Q.R. (1860) I, 462–496Google Scholar.

17 “Vocations to the Priesthood,” Ibid., 497–515.

18 Ibid., 521.

19 The most important criticisms of the articles in the Catholic press were reprinted in The Metropolitan Record, Nov. 3, 10, and 17, 1860.

20 Printed in Orestes A. Brownson's Later Life, pp. 253–254. A French translation of this letter is in the Archives of the S.C. of the Propaganda Fide Scritt. Riferte nei Congressi Amer. Cent, dal Canada all … Panama (1861–1869), vol. 19, ff. 44r–47vGoogle Scholar.

21 William McCloskey to George W. McCloskey, quoted in George W. McCloskey to Orestes A. Brownson, New York, April 10, 1861. Brownson papers, UNDA. Cf. Barnabo to McCloskey, W.. ASCPF. Lettere vol. 351, ff. 820rvGoogle Scholar.

22 Jeremiah W. Cummings to Orestes A. Brownson, July 19, 1861. Brownson papers, UNDA. Barnabo wrote to Cummings June 25. ASCPF Lettere vol. 352, f. 312vGoogle Scholar.

23 Cummings apparently sent the Brownson letter and the enclosure (not in Brownson's own handwriting) to Cardinal Barnabo. Archives de Prop. Fide, S.C.. Scritt. ref. nei Congressi, Amer. Cent. vol. 19, (1861–1862) ff. 300r–301vGoogle Scholar.

24 J. W. Cummings to O. A. Brownson, Oct. 9, 1861, in Brownson papers, UNDA. The letters to Cummings and Hughes accepting the Brownson apology were dated Sept. 12, 1861.

25 Archbishop John Hughes to Brownson, O. A. in Later Life, pp. 257–258Google Scholar. The letters complaining about Brownson from Barnabo to Hughes and to Cummings were dated August 31. Henry Brownson implies that Archbishop Hughes knew that the matter had been straightened out by Brownson's letter of July 24, 1861. This is apparently not so, because Cummings did not receive his letter from Barnabo until Oct. 9, 1861, after the date of Hughes's letter to Barnabo, Sept. 30, or his letter to Brownson, Oct. 3.

26 Archives of the de Prop, S.C.. Scritt, Fide.. Rif. nei Congressi. Amer. Sett. Canada, (1858–1861), vol. 7, ff. 687r to 692vGoogle Scholar.

27 “Slavery and the War,” B.Q.R. (Third New York Series), II (1861), 510–546Google Scholar.

28 The Metropolitan Record, Oct. 12, 1861, p. 653–654.

29 “Archbishop Hughes on Slavery.” B.Q.R. (Third New York Series), III, 34–36Google Scholar.

30 B.Q.R. (Third New York Series) IV, 370.

31 Ibid., 385–386.