Catholic America

[VictortheMonarch]

The gist of this is that Instead of the Quakers, Puritans and Lutherans, the Catholics are the first to be deported to America. It builds and builds until by the time the Quakers, Puritans and Lutherans arrive, the Catholics have built up a large group, to the point that the protestant groups themselves move west for their own lands.

This could perhaps see more religious upheaval, but instead inversed. Mayhaps the Protestant groups are more focused on the southern United States, or Perhaps they are more Northern. We would definitely see more fighting over Slavery, as Catholics fiercely disliked it due to the Pope not supporting it (though some were ambivalent to it). What do you see? could we see no fighting with Mexico? Could we see more annexed land in such a war? could their be less fighting, or more?

 

[WolfBear]

A good way to see a more Catholic America would be having the All-Mexico movement succeeds back in 1848, as @History Learner would no doubt agree. That said, though, this PoD might be a bit too late for you here. I do think that it would be easier to abolish slavery in the US with many more US states who are hostile towards slavery, and it would also be interesting to see an even more multiracial and multicultural US even in comparison to real life.

 

[raharris1973]

We would definitely see more fighting over Slavery, as Catholics fiercely disliked it due to the Pope not supporting it (though some were ambivalent to it).

In the USA, Catholics were laggards among denominations in anti-slavery activity. The Papacy was oddly cordial with the CSA, despite the greater part of Catholic US citizenry being in the north.

Catholic mainland Spanish America abolished slavery before mainly Protestant USA, but uniformly Catholic Cuba and Brazil abolished slavery after the USA.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

In the USA, Catholics were laggards among denominations in anti-slavery activity. The Papacy was oddly cordial with the CSA, despite the greater part of Catholic US citizenry being in the north.

Catholic mainland Spanish America abolished slavery before mainly Protestant USA, but uniformly Catholic Cuba and Brazil abolished slavery after the USA.

From what I can tell, it was at the time regarded with distaste in Catholic circles, the upper papacy being the exception. That is of course in America, where slavery could be seen, Europe didn't care much, they were more 'advanced' than the 'barbarians'.

 

[Circle of Willis]

From what I can tell, it was at the time regarded with distaste in Catholic circles, the upper papacy being the exception. That is of course in America, where slavery could be seen, Europe didn't care much, they were more 'advanced' than the 'barbarians'.

Seems things were rather the other way around. The Papacy and Catholic clergy generally weren't big fans of slavery, from its early days in the New World (Bartolomé de las Casas says hi, as does the Papal bull Sublimis Deus) to the 19th century (see another Papal bull, In Supremo Apostolatus). It was the worldly Catholic powers who kept slavery going in that part of the world the longest - Brazil famously didn't abolish slavery until 1888 (for which the former slavocrats helped overthrow the monarchy a year later) and Spain didn't abolish slavery on Cuba until 1886, for example.

In an American context, IIRC Catholicism was historically especially concentrated in Maryland, a slave state where the local Catholics (including even the Jesuits) were more lax about slavery than the Popes and which was in serious danger of defecting to the CSA early in the Civil War. Also Louisiana, obviously another slave state and one that actually did join the Confederacy. So I don't think a more abolitionist attitude would necessarily follow a more Catholic America unless, ironically, they actually do become a Papal puppet state as Protestant fanatics feared. Though for whatever it may be worth, the most famous Catholic Founding Father, Charles Carroll, was himself a major slaveowner and planter from Maryland, but had a more complex Jeffersonian attitude to the Peculiar Institution and did take some steps to try to get it abolished (which failed in the legislature).

 

[Skallagrim]

If the British North American colonies are majority-Catholic, then they are going to be very different colonies. Basically a Catholic population, kept under control by Crown-appointed governors, who are in turn backed by permanently stationed military forces.

This state of affairs could quite plausibly mean that the British colonies gain their independence much earlier, by flipping their allegiance to France during Queen Anne's War.

The Anglo-Catholic inhabitants of the former British colonies wouldn't want to become subjects of the King of France, so I imagine the French would compromise by having them recognise the Jacobite claim, and subsequently being governed by a royal governor appointed by the Old Pretender.

The Stuarts wouldn't move to America in 1713, but after the final failed rising a few decades later, the Young Pretender might be willing to sail off and become "KIng in America" (while still claiming England, Scotland and Ireland).

Of course, with the British evicted from North America, the French colonists would be facing the same issue that OTL's British colonists did: having to pay the King back in Europe for his protection, while the military threat would be gone. This suggests the possibility of the French and (former) British colonies -- all Catholic -- joining together in a league under the House of Stuart. This might even co-incide with the rough period of OTL's American Revolution.

Furthermore, the revolutions in Spanish America where somewhat burdened by a division between their Catholicism and their wish to throw off their (Catholic) monarch. And in fact, in OTL, Francisco de Miranda did propose a "Union of the Americas" to Thomas Jefferson. In this ATL, such a thing might be the ideal solution, with the Spanish independence movements proclaiming a desire to join the established American union under the House of Stuart.

 

[ATP]

If the British North American colonies are majority-Catholic, then they are going to be very different colonies. Basically a Catholic population, kept under control by Crown-appointed governors, who are in turn backed by permanently stationed military forces.

This state of affairs could quite plausibly mean that the British colonies gain their independence much earlier, by flipping their allegiance to France during Queen Anne's War.

The Anglo-Catholic inhabitants of the former British colonies wouldn't want to become subjects of the King of France, so I imagine the French would compromise by having them recognise the Jacobite claim, and subsequently being governed by a royal governor appointed by the Old Pretender.

The Stuarts wouldn't move to America in 1713, but after the final failed rising a few decades later, the Young Pretender might be willing to sail off and become "KIng in America" (while still claiming England, Scotland and Ireland).

Of course, with the British evicted from North America, the French colonists would be facing the same issue that OTL's British colonists did: having to pay the King back in Europe for his protection, while the military threat would be gone. This suggests the possibility of the French and (former) British colonies -- all Catholic -- joining together in a league under the House of Stuart. This might even co-incide with the rough period of OTL's American Revolution.

Furthermore, the revolutions in Spanish America where somewhat burdened by a division between their Catholicism and their wish to throw off their (Catholic) monarch. And in fact, in OTL, Francisco de Miranda did propose a "Union of the Americas" to Thomas Jefferson. In this ATL, such a thing might be the ideal solution, with the Spanish independence movements proclaiming a desire to join the established American union under the House of Stuart.

Most likely scenario.Althought,it could happened in 1756,too.
No matter which date we take,we would have united catholic America under Stuart rule.
Or not - in OTL England supported rebels in spanish colonies,now they would support Spain to crush Stuarts.

 

[Skallagrim]

Most likely scenario.Althought,it could happened in 1756,too.
No matter which date we take,we would have united catholic America under Stuart rule.
Or not - in OTL England supported rebels in spanish colonies,now they would support Spain to crush Stuarts.

A lot of it depends on the circumstances in Europe. With such an early POD, we can't assume things to be the same, but the basic cycle of European wars will no doubt be ongoing.

In the event, we're postulating a French-backed war for independence fought by the British North American colonies during (OTL) Queen Anne's War. This results is (I suspect, considering the autonomy of each colony) a confederal entity called something like "The United Kingdoms of America", swearing loyalty to the Stuarts. (Who style themselves "King of England, Scotland, Ireland and the American Realms" or something like that.)

Some time later, the Stuart line moves to North America after their risings in the British Isles definitively fail. This would initially be the Young Pretender going over to reign as his father's representative, while the Old Pretender would still perpetuate his claim to Britain. But after the OLd Pretender dies, I think the Young Pretender would just style himself "KIng of the American Realms" and be done with it. (This scenario would prevent his OTL marriage, and an ATL marriage could plausibly produce heirs -- he produced an illegitimate child in OTL, after all, so it's not like he was incapable. Thus, we may assume that that the Stuart line is secured. In giving up any -- active -- claim to Britain, he'd make things a lot easier for the Papacy, so his kingship over the American states would be recognised forthwith, by all Catholic powers.)

Some time later still. the French colonies in North America become increasingly unwilling to stay subservient to the King of France, for the same basic reasons that also motivated the British colonies in OTL. Since they're Catholic, and so is King Charles Stuart, I think they'd join with him. With would happen after the Old Pretender has croaked, so after 1766. At this point, King Charles would have no direct loyalty to France, and backing the French colonies would only see them join his realm.

I think Britain would sit on the side-lines, cackling about it all. The colonies would win their independence, thus reinforcing the precedent of successful American independence wars (already set when the British colonies split off), and setting the new precedent of Catholic break-away states joining the Stuart monarchy voluntarily and prospering by it.

Finally, we'd see the discontent on the Spanish colonies, which would translate to the obvious goal of "win independence from Europe, and join the Stuarts like the French colonies did, under the same terms". This resolves their internal conflict, because it allows them to break away from a mnarchy they feel mistreats them, but absolves them from the sin of going against the divine right of Kings. (They're just joining another Catholic monarch -- something that has happened in Europe a thousand times!)

Would Britain support Spain in this case? I see no reason why France and Spain would cease being allied. This means Britain is still opposed to the Franco-Spanish, and a revolution against these powers would be... good for Britain. So much as in OTL, I could see the British even tacitly supporting the independence movements. Especially if the Stuarts have given up their claims to Britain, and are content to rule in America.



In any case, the ultimate result -- a very large, independent, culturally Anglo-Franco-Spanish union of Catholic realms in America, under the Stuarts, reaching at least to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (and possibly beyond) -- is a fascinating one to consider.

 

[ATP]

A lot of it depends on the circumstances in Europe. With such an early POD, we can't assume things to be the same, but the basic cycle of European wars will no doubt be ongoing.

In the event, we're postulating a French-backed war for independence fought by the British North American colonies during (OTL) Queen Anne's War. This results is (I suspect, considering the autonomy of each colony) a confederal entity called something like "The United Kingdoms of America", swearing loyalty to the Stuarts. (Who style themselves "King of England, Scotland, Ireland and the American Realms" or something like that.)

Some time later, the Stuart line moves to North America after their risings in the British Isles definitively fail. This would initially be the Young Pretender going over to reign as his father's representative, while the Old Pretender would still perpetuate his claim to Britain. But after the OLd Pretender dies, I think the Young Pretender would just style himself "KIng of the American Realms" and be done with it. (This scenario would prevent his OTL marriage, and an ATL marriage could plausibly produce heirs -- he produced an illegitimate child in OTL, after all, so it's not like he was incapable. Thus, we may assume that that the Stuart line is secured. In giving up any -- active -- claim to Britain, he'd make things a lot easier for the Papacy, so his kingship over the American states would be recognised forthwith, by all Catholic powers.)

Some time later still. the French colonies in North America become increasingly unwilling to stay subservient to the King of France, for the same basic reasons that also motivated the British colonies in OTL. Since they're Catholic, and so is King Charles Stuart, I think they'd join with him. With would happen after the Old Pretender has croaked, so after 1766. At this point, King Charles would have no direct loyalty to France, and backing the French colonies would only see them join his realm.

I think Britain would sit on the side-lines, cackling about it all. The colonies would win their independence, thus reinforcing the precedent of successful American independence wars (already set when the British colonies split off), and setting the new precedent of Catholic break-away states joining the Stuart monarchy voluntarily and prospering by it.

Finally, we'd see the discontent on the Spanish colonies, which would translate to the obvious goal of "win independence from Europe, and join the Stuarts like the French colonies did, under the same terms". This resolves their internal conflict, because it allows them to break away from a mnarchy they feel mistreats them, but absolves them from the sin of going against the divine right of Kings. (They're just joining another Catholic monarch -- something that has happened in Europe a thousand times!)

Would Britain support Spain in this case? I see no reason why France and Spain would cease being allied. This means Britain is still opposed to the Franco-Spanish, and a revolution against these powers would be... good for Britain. So much as in OTL, I could see the British even tacitly supporting the independence movements. Especially if the Stuarts have given up their claims to Britain, and are content to rule in America.



In any case, the ultimate result -- a very large, independent, culturally Anglo-Franco-Spanish union of Catholic realms in America, under the Stuarts, reaching at least to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (and possibly beyond) -- is a fascinating one to consider.

When they abadonn their claims to Britain,they could legally take immigrants from Scotland and Ireland.Catholics,of course.

Now,my turn.I always wanted create some TL with nomads ruling plains of America - and,there is possibility for catholics one.
In OTL remnants of Cumans come to Hungary after 1240,and remain as nomads.But,in 1526 there was no much of them left.
So,let assume that there was more of them,and they go to America conqer steppes for Habsburg after 1515/Alliance with Hungary was made that year/

More come after 1526,after 1538 monks from England would join - especially cisterians - and built monasteries/fortress/factories which would deliver weapons for Cumans for food.Jesuits would help them christian locals.
Poles who supported Habsburg would join in 1588.

As a result,in 1717,when Habsburg abadonned spanish crown,we would have strong state on american plains.Which would remain catholic and Habsburg vassals.

They would take Comanches and Dakota as vassals too,made them catholics,and rule there.

In 1758 they would send horse army to attack british colonies,so Quebec would never fall.

Since american colonies would fear those horselords,they would never try Revolution.Which mean no french help.Which mean no England supporting revolution in France,which mean Europe of Kings surviving till 19th century.

Of course,when british create modern factories after 1820,that nomad Empire would eventually fall - but,not so quickly,and at least partially replaced by other catholic powers there.

 

[ATP]

To made our Cumans stronger,i would add not only cisterian,jesuits and poles from 1588,but also poles from 1683 who lnew how Sobieski army operated.
It was basically mix of light,medium calvary/no need for winged hussarls here/ and dragoons - they could beat any army in America till 1850 in open battle.
Add polish soldiers after Partition of Poland in 1795,and lost uprising in 1831.

I think,that they could retake Mexico for Spain after 1820,too.And,in 1835,ask carlist candidate to come there.
When they finally fall,America would belong to catholic Mexico,Quebec,and/relatively small part/ England.

@Skallagrim ,do you have any other ideas for nomad Empire in America? could stronger comanches made it?

 

[Agent23]

1. France wins the Seven Years war and extracts sizable concessions from the British.
2. The aftermath weakens the British sufficiently that they undergo some internal instability, enough to lose grip on their North America colonies outright, or to force them to tax the hell out of the place and consequently piss off the colonists.
Meanwhile, France would be sending more people to its expanded North America possessions.