“An Appeal to Truth”

As a volunteer here at PAHRC for the summer, I’ve been cataloging the pamphlet collection. One of the first pamphlets I dealt with immediately caught my attention. Entitled “An Appeal to Truth”, it was written in 1915 by Cardinal Mercier, who was then serving as the Archbishop of Malines (Mechelen) in Belgium. Directed towards the archbishops of Germany, Bavaria, and Austria-Hungary, Mercier wrote about supposed war-time offenses committed during Germany’s occupation of Belgium during World War I.

1915 publication of “An Appeal to Truth”

Cardinal Mercier attempted to dispel various nasty rumors that Germans were directing at Belgian citizens as well as make public Belgium’s victims of abuse.

Cardinal Mercier was particularly agitated over the German government’s accusations that Belgians were committing crimes against occupying German soldiers. Mercier claimed that these accusations, which were addressed in the German government’s 1915 publication, entitled The White Book, were completely untrue and fabricated.

The German government claimed that Belgians, including young girls, were murdering and torturing wounded German soldiers, The Cardinal stated, “Hardly had the German armies trodden the soil of our country, when the rumour spread among you that our civilians were taking part in military operations; that the women of Vise and of Liege were gouging out the eyes of your soldiers…” (2)

The Cardinal denied these allegations and instead offered his own; he argued that Germans soldiers had committed unspeakable acts against entire villages in Belgium, and that not even priests or nuns were safe from them:

“Fifty innocent priests and thousands of innocent Catholics were put to death; hundreds of others, whose lives have been saved by circumstances independent of the will of their persecutors, were in danger of death; thousands of innocent persons, with no previous trial, were imprisoned; many of them underwent months of detention, and, when they were released, the most minute questioning, to which they were submitted, revealed no guilt in any of them.” (9)

At the pamphlet’s core was Cardinal Mercier’s attempt to convince German bishops to agree to a fair tribunal. He sought a public forum in which the Archbishops of Belgium would be given a chance to refute the German charges and present evidence accordingly. Additionally, he sought revenge for the murdered and harassed Belgian citizens.

It seems to me that, in an effort to appear even-handed, Cardinal Mercier added “If, in formulating these denunciations, we are calumniating the German army, or, if the military authority had just reasons for commanding or permitting those acts which we call criminal, it is to the honour and the national interest of Germany to confute us.” (9)  Additionally, this statement places the German Bishops in a precarious position because if they do not accept the public trial then it could be argued that they did not rise to defend the honor of Germany and its soldiers. The Cardinal maintained that on several occasions Germans ignored their cries for justice. He stated:

“On August 18th, 1914, the Bishop of Liege wrote to Commandant Bayer, Governor of the town of Liege: – ‘Several villages have been destroyed one after the other; important people, among them some priests, have been shot; others have been arrested, and all have protested their innocence…’ No reply was received to this letter.” (4)

Cardinal Mercier argued that the Germans had conducted their own investigation into the matters without including any cross-examination. He cited a German inspection of Louvain from 1914 as an example of the one-sided nature of these inquiries. Cardinal Mercier stated that when German authorities spoke to witnesses, “Sometimes it was in the presence of a representative of local authority, who was ignorant of the German language, and so was obliged to accept and to sign on trust the official reports.” He claimed that this evidence was unacceptable, the argument one-sided, and that it was unfair for them to take the argument to the Pope without giving the Belgian’s a chance to voice their issues. (6-7)

Mercier entreated German bishops to agree to a fair tribunal in which both sides would be given equitable opportunity to present their case. He used priestly solidarity to back his request, “Is it not upon us, the pastors of our people, that the duty lies of helping to get rid of these bad feelings, and of reestablishing on its foundations of justice, to-day so shaken, the union in love of all the children of the great Catholic family?” (12)

Unfortunately, I have been unable to ascertain if the German bishops agreed to a tribunal or even responded to this public letter. However, while looking for other materials in PAHRC’s pamphlet collection relating to German atrocities committed in Belgium during the Great War, I found a pamphlet written by J. Esslemont Adams and Leon Mirman entitled “Their Crimes.” The pamphlet, published in 1917, discussed crimes against Belgian and French citizens during the German occupation. They state “Germany has been martyrizing Belgium. She has from that moment onwards turned the land into a prison: the frontiers are armed against Belgians like a battle front…” (60)

1917 publication of “Their Crimes”

Adams and Mirman’s arguments seem to back Cardinal Mercier’s allegations, even going so far as to cite the Cardinal’s letter to Governor General von Bissing (the German Governor General of Belgium during the occupation). The passage stated the crimes against both French and Belgian women and children, “Sometimes the attacks were individual and sometimes committed by bodies of men, e.g., at Melen-Labouxhe, Margaret W. was violated by twenty German soldiers, and then shot by the side of her father and mother. They did not even respect nuns.” (32)

What I took away from reading these pamphlets is the suffering occupied territories encounter during times of war. The authors of these publications wanted to increase public awareness in an effort to demand retribution for victims and to form a sense of national solidarity for the war effort. I will endeavor to search for some of the answers that these two sources leave me with. For now, they have imparted a vivid picture of the intensity and insanity that accompanies war.

1832 Cholera Outbreak in Philadelphia and Duffy’s Cut

Lately, there has been a fair amount of news coverage (“Fates Of Irish Workers Sealed In Mass Grave”, “Pennsylvania Ghost Story Leads to Murder Mystery”, “CNN Visits Penn Museum to Follow Story of “Duffy’s Cut” Excavations in Malvern, PA”) about the mystery surrounding “Duffy’s Cut,” a stretch of land in Chester County where, during the summer of 1832, 57 Irish laborers died. The men were hired by labor contractor Philip Duffy to construct mile 59 of the Pennsylvania and Columbia Railroad. The cholera epidemic that was ravaging parts of the U.S., including New York City, spread to Philadelphia and reached the laborers’ camp in mid-August. Within two and a half weeks, all of the men were dead.   

All of the deaths were blamed on the disease; however, historical documents and local stories suggest that some of the victims may have been murdered by locals, antagonistic to Irish Catholics, who wanted to prevent the outbreak from spreading. A few years ago, scholars and other interested parties began an archeological dig at the site of the mass grave to try and determine whether foul play had indeed occurred.       

Although downplayed in histories concerning the 1832 cholera epidemic, the toll that the disease took on Philadelphia that summer was high. Many residents fled from the city to the countryside. August proved to be the worst month with well over a hundred cases a day reported. A significant number of those cases resulted in death.  The worst days in the city were August 6, when there were 176 cases and 71 deaths, and August 7, when there were 136 cases and 73 deaths reported.      

There was a fairly organized and concerted effort on the part of the medical community in the city during the early months of the outbreak. However, by August medical personnel were overwhelmed and began to seek outside help. The Committee of the Almshouse, later known as Philadelphia General Hospital, asked Bishop Kenrick if he could request the help of the Sisters of Charity to serve as nurses. The order, founded by Elizabeth Ann Seton, already had a presence in the city. In 1814, at the request of then Bishop Egan and Fr. Michael Hurley, pastor of St. Augustine’s Church and close friend of Mother Seton, sisters began working in St. Joseph’s orphanage.       

Sister Rose White, first sister servant of St. Joseph's Home, no date

Kenrick agreed to contact the order.  In addition to the five sisters already in Philadelphia, eight others were sent from the motherhouse in Maryland. They lived and worked in the Almshouse and other hospitals, including St. Augustine Church, which Fr. Hurley had turned into a makeshift hospital under the supervision of Dr. Oliver H. Taylor.        

Father Michael Hurley, no date

Four Sisters of Charity were also called upon to minister to the dying men at Duffy’s Cut. Their presence was recorded from the accounts of an eyewitness; however, no official record of their mission exists. Relevant documents may have been destroyed in the fire at St. Augustine’s several years later. Ironically, although most of the patients cared for by the Sisters of Charity at St. Augustine were recorded as being non-Catholic, the church was not spared by Protestant nativists when it was burned to the ground during the riots of 1844.       

Lithograph of St. Augustine in ruins, 1844

Cholera had run its course in Philadelphia by early September. None of the sisters who ministered in the city and at Duffy’s cut during the outbreak perished from the disease. Their assistance, as well as that of Bishop Kenrick and Father Hurley, was publicly recognized by the city. The Board of Health and the Almshouse Committee recognized their efforts, and the city awarded silver plates to the sisters and thirteen physicians who had played a prominent role during the outbreak. The sisters declined the offer, instead asking that the money used to make the plates be used as funds for the orphanages and schools that the order administered.          

 In his diary, Bishop Kenrick commented on the noteworthy efforts of the sisters and priests during the outbreak: “…displaying an example of heroic fortitude, with certain peril to their lives, the Sisters took charge of the pest-stricken patients in that Hospital. Four others of the Sisters gave their services in other hospitals…priests proved their character and their strong virtues, caring for the sick in the exercise of the sacred ministry; while non-Catholic ministers generally fled from the city.”       

Excerpt from Kenrick's diary, September 22, 1832

Kenrick was one among many prominent religious figures of all Christian denominations in the United States and Britain who viewed the outbreak as punishment for people’s sins, specifically those dealing with the overindulgence of food and drink. And although Kenrick greatly assisted those affected by the disease, in a letter to Bishop Rese of Detroit, Kenrick shares his view of the outbreak as sort of a blessing in disguise in that it allowed many to reflect on their lives and come to terms with death. He writes, “The cholera has done great good in Philadelphia. Many are prepared for death, frightened from daily examples of unexpected deaths.”   

  

Excerpt from Kenrick letter to Bishop Rese, August 16, 1832

References:  McGowan, Francis X., ed. Historical Sketch of St. Augustine’s Church, Phila., Pa. Philadelphia: The Augustinian Fathers, 1896.    

Prendergast, Edmond, ed. Diary and Visitation Record of the Rt. Rev. Francis Patrick Kenrick, 1830-1851. Lancaster, Pa: Wickersham Printing Co., 1916.    

Watson, William. “The Sisters of Charity, the 1832 Cholera Epidemic in Philadelphia and Duffy’s Cut.” U.S. Catholic Historian 27no. 4 (Fall 2009): 1-16.    

For more information on Duffy’s Cut see:    

Watson, William E. et al. The Ghosts of Duffy’s Cut: The Irish Who Died Building America’s Most Dangerous Stretch of Railroad. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2006.    

 

A “petulant girl”?: Josephine Walsh’s diaries

I’ve been volunteering at PAHRC this summer, and am currently creating an inventory for two artificial collections: “handwritten manuscripts” and “manuscripts books.” It appears that many of the items in these collections were removed from manuscript collections.

For instance, many of the items that I’ve come across were created by Josephine M. Walsh. These materials, mostly diaries, were likely pulled from the Walsh family papers, a collection that documents the Martin J. Walsh (1840-1910) family, in particular Martin’s sons James J. Walsh and Joseph Walsh, both of whom were doctors.

Josephine Walsh (center) on her way to Europe, July 1900

Josephine Walsh (center) on her way to Europe, July 1900

Josephine Walsh was the youngest child of Martin Walsh, a prominent general goods businessman who lived in Parsons, PA, and Bridget Golden Walsh, the niece of Martin’s business partner. As one of six children, she was more than twenty years younger than her distinguished older brothers, James and Joseph. Joseph Walsh, based in Philadelphia, became a physician and studied tuberculosis. James Walsh cut short his Jesuit education due to his interest in medicine. Based in New York, he went on to become a doctor, a well-known lecturer, and author of several books on religion and healing.

Dr. James J Walsh

Dr. James J Walsh

Josephine’s mother died in 1895, when she was 12. Her father died fifteen years later. Josephine cared for him during the last two years of his life, after a stroke left him weakened.

Josephine’s diaries span her young adulthood, from her time at Mount St. Joseph’s Academy until her twenties. They are full of travel notes, commentary on social events, and writings on her family and even their shop business. Story drafts and inspirational ideas are scattered throughout her notebooks. She also wrote plays, which she and her friends performed for their families.

Though her family was quite wealthy, she apparently sought financial independence through her stories. A diary entry from 1906 laments her rejections from publishing houses.

“So far the income from my writings has amounted to nothing. In fact less than nothing – because I have had the expense of paper, ink and time!”

Walsh on the business of writing. 1906 diary, page 1.

Walsh on the business of writing. 1906 diary, page 1.

Walsh on the business of writing. 1906 diary, page 2.

Walsh on the business of writing. 1906 diary, page 2.

Josie wanted to be a writer, but this was a tough dream for a woman in the early twentieth century. It appears that her family did not support her ambition. Her brother James in particular had a very strict idea of a woman’s domestic responsibilities, and did not allow her to pursue anything else.

“When I had kept house for about a year, I begged Jim to let me go to school some place to learn higher education and real culture, but he wouldn’t hear of it. When I insisted and said I would bolt anyhow whether he approved or not, he wrote me a letter that will live in my memory forever. He told me that if I left home – I would be like the woman who tired of one husband and sought another. He told me to be a real – a real woman, and not a petulant girl. I pestered him with letters full of my dissatisfactions for fully three years…he begged me to appreciate my happy lot in life and my fortunate position, even though I couldn’t see it that way.”

Her brother's refusal to allow her to attend school.

Her brother’s refusal to allow her to attend school.

Her brother's refusal to allow her to attend school (cont.)

Her brother’s refusal to allow her to attend school (cont.)

Dr. James Walsh lecture on the proper duty of women - "to bear many children, that men may abound."

Dr. James Walsh lecture on the proper duty of women – “to bear many children, that men may abound.”

 

The Josephine Walsh papers as well as the Walsh family papers would be very useful for researchers interested in the lives of wealthy women, or more specifically Catholic women, around the turn of the 20th century. These papers also document certain views that were held during this time period about women and a woman’s “proper place.”

A Brief History of the Growing Pains of the Church in Philadelphia

While the founding of Philadelphia as a diocese dates back to 1808 when it was separated from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the history of the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania dates back another hundred years. The first Mass in Philadelphia was said in 1708 in a private home; however, the first church would not be built until 1729 when St. Thomas the Apostle in Glen Mills was built.[1] The Catholic community continued to slowly expand so that by 1785 there were three more parishes, Old St. Joseph’s, Old St. Mary’s, both in Philadelphia and St. John the Baptist in Ottsville, Bucks County.[2] Furthermore, at this time there were only five priests for the entire state.[3] As Philadelphia was a major metropolitan hub, its population continued to increase with immigrants coming from counties across Europe.  With the influx of these immigrants, Holy Trinity Church in Philadelphia, the first ethnic church in the country, was built in 1789 for the German Catholics and by 1808 the population of Catholics in the city had grown to 30,000.[4]

2010_047_078

Catholic Historical Research Center Digital Collections https://omeka.chrc-phila.org/items/show/7133

The original boundary of the Diocese of Philadelphia included all of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and South Jersey. The first bishop was Michael Francis Egan, who had only 11 priests and 12 churches under his jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.[5] As the first bishop, Egan faced problems in establishing authority, with the trustees who ran Old Saint Mary’s Parish posing the biggest problem. Trustees were incorporated religious congregations that owned and managed the church property. The trustees at Old St. Mary’s challenged Bishop Egan’s authority on the ability to appoint and dismiss priests assigned to the church. The conflict was left unresolved as Egan passed away on July 22, 1814 and his replacement, Henry Conwell, was not appointed for another six years.[6]

Bishop Michael Egan, n.d.

Bishop Michael Egan, n.d.

Similar to Egan, Conwell struggled with the trustees of Old St. Mary’s. The conflict came to a head when Conwell excommunicated William Hogan, a popular priest from the parish. This was due to the fact that Hogan and members of the parish had continued to push against the authority of Bishop Conwell.[7] Even after Hogan was excommunicated, Old St. Mary’s supported him by ordering all “episcopal insignia be taken down” from the church and that Hogan resume his position as pastor of the parish.[8] The schism would even gain the attention of the Vatican, which sided with the authority of the bishop in a 1822 ruling.[9]

Engraving of Old St. Mary, n.d.

Engraving of Old St. Mary, n.d.

With the questions of authority resolved, the Church continued to grow under Conwell and his successor Francis Kenrick. Kenrick was actually appointed as coadjutor to Conwell in 1830 and would become the third bishop in 1842 upon Conwell’s death.[10] It would be under Kenrick that the church in Philadelphia would greatly expand, with the building of Saint Charles Seminary and the establishing of the first diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Herald.[11] By the end of Kenrick’s time as bishop in 1851, the diocese had added 80 churches, 90 priests, and 150,000 Catholics from when the diocese was founded in 1808.[12]

2010_047_079

Catholic Historical Research Center Digital Collections https://omeka.chrc-phila.org/items/show/7134

 

 

[1] Thomas Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus in North America vol. II, (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1908) 473; Archdiocese of Philadelphia Catholic Directory, (Philadelphia: CatholicPhilly.com, 2018).

[2] Archdiocese of Philadelphia Catholic Directory, (Philadelphia: CatholicPhilly.com, 2018).

[3]John Gilmary Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, Bishop and First Archbishop of Baltimore, (New York: 1888).

[4] Thomas Rzeznik, “Roman Catholic Parishes,” The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia, http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/roman-catholic-parishes/; “A Brief History of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia,” Archdiocese of Philadelphia, http://archphila.org/history.php.

[5] The Catholic Standard and Times, (July 29, 1976); “The Catholic Church in Pennsylvania before 1800,” http://omeka.pahrc.net/admin/items/show/id/7133.

[6] Christine Friend, “Philadelphia’s First Bishop,” CHRC (February 22, 2010), http://www.chrc-phila.org/philadelphias-first-bishop/.

[7] Martin I. J. Griffin, “Life of Bishop Conwell,” Records of the American Catholic History Society of Philadelphia, vol. 25, no. 2 (June, 1914), 160.

[8] Martin I. J. Griffin, “Life of Bishop Conwell,” 161.

[9] Thomas Rzeznik, “Roman Catholic Parishes.”

[10] “A Brief History of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.”

[11] Katherine DeFenzo, “Bishop Francis Kenrick and His Journals,” CHRC (August 20, 2015), http://www.chrc-phila.org/bishop-francis-kenrick-and-his-journals/.

[12] “A Brief History of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.”