Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 24, 2013, 07:15:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: [1]
 
Author Topic: Portrait of Catholic Constitution Signers  (Read 2840 times)
catholicresistence
Guest
« on: May 31, 2006, 01:05:PM »

Thomas Fitz-Simons

American merchant, b. in Ireland, 1741; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 26 Aug., 1811. There is no positive date of his arrival in America, but church records in Philadelphia show he was there in 1758. In 1763 he was married to Catherine, sister of George Meade, and he was Meade's partner as a merchant until 1784. In the events that led up to the revolt of the colonists against England he took a prominent part. He was one of the deputies who met in conference in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia, out of which conference grew the Continental Congress that assembled 4 Sept., 1774, and of which he was a member. His election as one of the Provincial Deputies in July, 1774, is the first instance of a Catholic being named for a public office in Pennsylvania. At the breaking-out of hostilities he organized a company of militia and took part in the Trenton campaign in New Jersey. After this service in the field he returned to Philadelphia and was active with other merchants in providing for the needs of the army.  

On 12 Nov., 1782, he was elected a member of the Congress of the old Confederacy and was among the leaders in its deliberations. He was a member of the Convention that met in Philadelphia 25 May, 1787, and framed the Constitution of the United States. Daniel Carroll of Maryland being the only other Catholic member. In this convention Fitz-Simons voted against universal suffrage and in favour of limiting it to free-holders. Under this constitution he was elected a member of the first Congress of the United States and in it served on the Committee on Ways and Means. In politics he was an ardent Federalist. He was re-elected to the second and the third Congresses, but was defeated for the fourth, in 1794, and this closed his political career. Madison wrote to Jefferson, on 16 Nov., 1794, that the failure of Fitz-Simons to be selected was a "stinging blow for the aristocracy". The records of Congress show that he was among the very first, if not the first, to advocate the fundamental principles of a protective tariff system to help American industries. When Washington was inaugurated the first president, Fitz-Simons was one of the four laymen, Charles and Daniel Carroll of Maryland, and Dominic Lynch of New York being the others, to sign the address of congratulation presented to him by the Catholics of the country. He was among the founders of Georgetown College, and was considered during his long life one of the most enlightened merchants in the United States. On all questions connected with commerce and finance his advice was always sought and regarded with respect in the operations that laid the foundation of the commercial prosperity of the new republic.

 

 

 

Daniel Carroll

Brother of Archbishop Carroll, b. at upper Marlboro, Maryland, U. S. A., 1733; d. at Washington, 1829. Politically he was, in his time, one of the most influential men of his native State, but the wider fame of his illustrious brother has somewhat overshadowed his repute. His early training was like that of the archbishop. "My father", he wrote, 20 Dec., 1762, to his kinsman, James Carroll, in Ireland, "died in 1750 and left six children, myself, Ann, John, Ellen, Mary and Betsey. My eldest sister Ann is married to Mr. Robert Brent in Virginia. They have one child a son. My brother John was sent for his education on my return. Ellen, my second sister, is married well, to Mr. Wm. Brent in Virginia near my eldest sister. She has three boys and one girl. My sisters Mary and Betsy are unmarried and live chiefly with my mother" (Woodstock Letters, VII, 5). An elder brother, Henry, was drowned while a boy at school. Until the Revolution Daniel Carroll led the life of the country gentlemen of the day, but it may be noted that the Catholic men who had been sent abroad to school were far superior, as a class, to their neighbours, whose narrow and insular education rarely led them to interests beyond their county limits. Carroll was an active partisan of the colonists, serving as a member from Maryland of the old Colonial Congress (1780-1784). He was also a delegate from Maryland to the convention that sat in Philadelphia, 14 May to 17 Sept., 1787, and framed the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Fitz-Simons of Pennsylvania was the only other Catholic among the members. On his return to Maryland, Carroll was by his efforts largely instrumental in having the Constitution adopted by that State. In opposition to the arguments of Samuel Chase, the Anti-Federalist leader in Maryland, he wrote and printed a public letter defending the proposed Constitution, the last sentences of which read: "If there are errors it should be remembered that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments. Regarding it then in every point of view with a candid and disinterested mind I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world" (Maryland Journal, 16 Oct., 1787). As one of the four laymen representing the Catholics of the United States, his name is signed to the address of congratulation presented to George Washington on his election as President of the Republic under the Constitution.  

In the sessions of the new Congress Carroll served again (1789-1791) as a member from Maryland. When the Congress, at the session held in October, 1784, at Trenton, New Jersey, enacted that a board of three commissioners should lay out a site, between two and three miles square, on the Delaware for a federal city, to be the capital of the nation, he was named with Thomas Johnson and David Stuart as his associates. The choice of the present site of Washington was advocated by him, and he owned one of the four farms taken for it, Notley Young, David Burns, and Samuel Davidson being the others interested. The capitol was built on the land transferred to the Government by Carroll, and there is additional interest to Catholics in the fact that, in 1663, this whole section of country belonged to a man named Pope, who called it Rome. On 15 April, 1791, Carroll and David Stuart, as the official commissioners of Congress, laid the corner-stone of the District of Columbia at Jones's Point near Alexandria, Virginia. When the Congress met in Washington for the first time, in November, 1800, Carroll and Notley Young owned the only two really comfortable and imposing houses within the bounds of the city. Young's name is among those assisting as collectors of subscriptions (1787) for the founding of Georgetown College.

 

 

CR note- odd, none of them are listed as Masons-these articles are from Catholic Encyclopedia. Apparently, they were not!!!

Logged
Quo_Vadis_Petre
Red Comet

Member

Posts: 3,691



« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2006, 01:21:PM »

I don't think anyone here is saying that all the signers of the Constitution were Masons. I do believe, though, that these Catholics were imbued with Americanism. The Catholic Encyclopedia is also tainted with it a bit.
Logged

"In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics."   -St. Pius X

"If the Church were not divine, this Council [the Second Vatican Council] would have buried Her."   -Cardinal Giuseppe Siri

St. Peter Arbues, pray for us.
CampeadorShin
Member

Posts: 2,868



« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2006, 02:36:PM »

Very few of the signers were Masons, but the ideas were the products of Masonic propaganda and idea circulated by Masonic controlled publications.
Logged

SINCE OCTOBER 26TH, I HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO POST OR SEND PM'S.  I CAN RECIEVE PM'S BUT CAN'T REPLY.

WHY?  NO ONE HAS TOLD ME.
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2006, 03:24:PM »

Quote from: Quo_Vadis_Petre
I don't think anyone here is saying that all the signers of the Constitution were Masons. I do believe, though, that these Catholics were imbued with Americanism. The Catholic Encyclopedia is also tainted with it a bit.

 

Actually, I am reading the book right now about Carroll of Carrollton. He was strongly Catholic in his views, but gosh darn, he lived in Maryland and got involved with Govt.

 

The book makes the arguement I always heard-that Parliment and PM were going away from Christian view to despotism,etc

 

Read the book, excellant read--unless a fellow getting involved in his nation and politics is Americanism (a epitaph convient to those that choose to do nothing about getting involved in the civil body politic and promoting their faith)

 

The Encyclopedia was put out in early 20th century, not long after Leo's letter. Then of course ,it is MO to denigrate everyone other than "our" little group (SSPX, Sede, whomever).

 

I have read and reread the encyclical on Americanism, what the late HF talks about looks little to what is thrown around here- don't get invovled, don't vote, sit there and be negative, pat yourself on the backm, attack and denigrate.

 

Oddly, Leo did not do like his predecessor did when Italy united, he did not call on Catholics to not get involved, sit around, complain and refuse to get involved. Encyclical after encyclical from Popes did not call on US Catholic not to get involved in politics, nor live here, nor contribute- everything I read is opposite- for us to get involved and bring our Faith to the forefront.

 

Carroll at no time put his Faith 2nd, he did get invovled though...apparently that was his sin.

Logged
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2006, 03:27:PM »

Quote from: CampeadorShin
Very few of the signers were Masons, but the ideas were the products of Masonic propaganda and idea circulated by Masonic controlled publications.

 

What publications? Who were the publishers?

 

Carroll of Carrollton went through Jesuit schools in France and clung to his priest while there-they were best friends.

 

Were the Jesuits "in" on the Masonic plot?

 

Again, I was a cop, I don't go off the cliff into fantasy land, I research and do the reading. I would like to know the answers to the above bolded questions.

 

We have Masons all over today, I guess than we are all tainted as well.

 

 

Logged


Quo_Vadis_Petre
Red Comet

Member

Posts: 3,691



« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2006, 03:27:PM »

If you imply that I sit on my behind and do nothing, such as trying to get involved in political life in the country, you are mistaken. I made my assumption on the fact that Carroll's brother, Archbishop of Baltimore, was himself imbued with Americanist principles.
Logged

"In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics."   -St. Pius X

"If the Church were not divine, this Council [the Second Vatican Council] would have buried Her."   -Cardinal Giuseppe Siri

St. Peter Arbues, pray for us.
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2006, 03:36:PM »

Quote from: Quo_Vadis_Petre
If you imply that I sit on my behind and do nothing, such as trying to get involved in political life in the country, you are mistaken. I made my assumption on the fact that Carroll's brother, Archbishop of Baltimore, was himself imbued with Americanist principles.

 

So, the Bishop-the one that helped Mother Seton get her start- was evil, huh?

 

BTW- the Bishop wa a cousin of Carroll of Carrollton. Yes, he was brother of Daniel.

 

In another post, I wrote a long article noting that the Masonic revolution in France, Mexico, Portugal and otherr areas did not have the same hallmarks as US revolution. The Masons were only partially successful.

 

I tire of the complaining on this site that the USA did not automatically-en masse-convert to the Faith and name a Catholic king. Yes, Bishop Carroll was a bit lacking in his promotion of the Faith, then again, he lived in hard times-read  the book, you will see how vicious the anti-Catholics were. He may ahve taken a softer approach, whether we like it or not.

 

As to your involvement, if you do get invovled, good for you. If not, your faith is largely dead, you need to bring it out in the public, unlike others on this site, I leave that to you-I do not throw around "Americanist" labels and such.

 

If I falsly accuse anyone, then I am sorry, if not......

 

 

Logged
Quo_Vadis_Petre
Red Comet

Member

Posts: 3,691



« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2006, 03:40:PM »

Sorry, but it is true that bishops of the United States of America have been for the most part imbued with Americanism. They protested against Pope Leo XIII when he wrote the encyclical against Americanism that they were not so, and just went on. That is how later Archbishop Cushing allowed interfaith services (if I'm not mistaken).
Logged

"In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics."   -St. Pius X

"If the Church were not divine, this Council [the Second Vatican Council] would have buried Her."   -Cardinal Giuseppe Siri

St. Peter Arbues, pray for us.
Pages: [1]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC