Carl Creason - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Carl Creason

U.S. Catholic Historian, 2017

Abstract:Catholic clergy from Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland offered a unique interpretation of... more Abstract:Catholic clergy from Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland offered a unique interpretation of events that transpired from the presidential election of 1860 through the Confederate invasion of Kentucky in the fall of 1862. Due to their location within the border region, where sympathies remained divided throughout the Civil War, the clergy sought to remain apolitical while advocating a peaceful resolution to the national crisis. Despite their endorsements of neutrality and compromise, Catholic prelates and priests from the region remained openly critical of the perceived negative influence of radical religion in American society. Border State clergy viewed the triumph of the Republican Party, the secession movement, and the start of the war as products of Protestant fanaticism in the United States. Catholic clergy argued that if more Americans embraced Catholic principles, especially respect for the law and the maintenance of social order, then secession and civil war could have been avoided.

History: Reviews of New Books, 2016

for political success. So, too, did Johnson. Like the president, Johnson navigated an intraparty ... more for political success. So, too, did Johnson. Like the president, Johnson navigated an intraparty landscape fraught with division between Northern and Southern Democrats that forced him to field his own share of assaults from the liberal fringe. The result, as Donaldson adroitly details, was an important period of bipartisan compromise and moderation. Johnson lined up the needed support of moderate Democrats for Eisenhower’s foreign policy initiatives, and the Republican president signed much of Johnson’s moderate, half-a-loaf domestic legislation with little to no contest. This political quid pro quo underpinned much of American policy during the Eisenhower years, from Social Security expansion and the Federal Highway project to the creation of NASA and the Eisenhower Doctrine, to the tepid enforcement of desegregation and Civil Rights. By decade’s end, however, Donaldson argues that this fragile coalition began to crumble, as the fringe of both parties increasingly exerted greater political weight. In short, the “middle way” gave way to the polarizing tumult of the 1960s. The author’s intended audience is an important factor in weighing the contributions of this book. As in his previous works, Donaldson targets general readers, especially undergraduate students. The book is a valuable contribution and supplement to American history courses, providing students with a well-written and succinct account of politics and policy making during the Eisenhower years. Here, students get a clear look at the vying factions within the Republican and Democratic parties and how these factions helped shift both the parties and their respective coalitions during the early post–World War II era. Moreover, by highlighting the strategic underpinnings of policymaking that gave rise to bipartisan moderation under Eisenhower, Donaldson offers students the opportunity to delineate between politics and governance, or, to paraphrase Carl Becker, “things said and things done.” For scholars in the field, Donaldson’s contributions may be less compelling. The book is largely a work of synthesis, supplemented with an array of primary source material. As a result, political historians will likely not deem the book’s thrust and insights profoundly new. Some may take issue with the fact that the “secret coalition” was actually well known, and the policy examples of this bipartisan coalition are covered too succinctly by the author and require deeper analysis. Historians may also argue that the true breakdown of this moderate coalition occurred during the Nixon Administration, rather than in the early 1960s. These critiques aside, Donaldson does contribute to the scholarly discourse by refocusing attention on the center. In many respects, the book itself carves out a middle ground amid the pillars of scholarship on the era, from the historical works on American conservatism and civil rights to Robert Cairo’s celebrated biographies of Lyndon Johnson. Much of this literature spotlights the political forces pulling at the center. The Secret Coalition reminds us that, amidst such tensions, there was a period when “moderation prevailed, the center held, and the people’s work was done” (x).

American Catholic Studies, 2013

The paper explores the views of American Catholic bishops during the Civil War period. As a whole... more The paper explores the views of American Catholic bishops during the Civil War period. As a whole, the Catholic Church proclaimed peace and public neutrality during the war. Yet despite urging of the Vatican for clergy to remain uninvolved in American politics, many bishops and other clergymen developed specific Union or Confederate sympathies, thereby creating divisions within the American Catholic Church. Such an example of divergent sympathies can be found through a comparison of Bishop Martin John Spalding of Louisville, Kentucky, and Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio. The bishops' letters, journals, and diocesan publications illustrate the rift within the American Catholic Church of the time period. The case studies of Spalding and Purcell serve as clear examples of opposing sympathies. Spalding's conservative, Southern roots evolved into a pro-slavery, anti-Lincoln view, while Purcell's immigrant, urban background inspired him to promote an abolitionist, pro-Union agenda.

U.S. Catholic Historian, 2017

History: Reviews of New Books, 2016

American Catholic Studies, 2013