In this season of wassail and Christmas carols, it seems fitting to sing the praises of another Carroll, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the preeminent Roman Catholic of the American founding generation. Although he, like a few other notable statesmen, is not typically included in the first tier of American Founders, he could have been, as he put his stamp on the political philosophy and political development of his day. Just as importantly, he was a man of such integrity, erudition, and congeniality that by friendship with the likes of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, he muted much of the anti-Catholicism that characterized American life, especially in his home state of Maryland. Maryland—named after Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, King of Great Britain and Ireland—displayed some of the worst intolerance of Catholics of all the colonies.
A new biography of Carroll by Fr. Charles P. Connor provides an accessible and meaningful introduction to this great man born out of wedlock and only belatedly recognized by his father, though the two grew to be lifelong companions, enjoying deep mutual respect. Carroll was one of the very finest statesmen of his generation. Brad Birzer’s political biography of Carroll, though fifteen years old, has aged well and offers a scholarly companion to Connor’s more general biography for those wanting to better understand Carroll’s political philosophy, political writing, impact on his colleagues, and contribution to the Constitution of 1787.
Just how bad was the anti-Catholicism? Connor explains early in his biography that it was part of the baggage brought to the colonies from England, even though so many came to find religious tolerance. Once across the Atlantic, the ugly bias festered and adapted to its new environment. The raw and visceral hatred toward “papists” overflowed the boundaries of rationality. If a mother were widowed and then married a Catholic, her minor children might be legally moved to a foster home. No matter how successful or respected a Catholic might be, he could not vote, he could not practice law, and he could not hold political office without taking an oath damning his own Church. Nonetheless, these barriers fell as Carroll was elected the president of the Maryland Senate and served as one of the first two US Senators of his home state. The Carroll dynasty, moreover, was one of the wealthiest in America, which likely added envy to hatred.
He more than met his civic duties, employing all his education, intellect, virtue, money, time, and reputation to serve the burgeoning republic.
Connor aptly opens his biography with a passage Carroll wrote in his final year:
I have lived to my ninety-sixth year; I have enjoyed continued health, I have been blessed with great wealth, prosperity, and most of the good things which the world can bestow—public approbation, esteem, applause; but what I now look back on with the greatest satisfaction to myself is, that I have practiced the duties of my religion.
The Move to Independence
To ensure his Catholic intellectual formation, Charles’ father sent him to France for a first-class Jesuit education, whence he returned better educated than most of his contemporaries and fluent in French. He came back in 1763, fully equipped in character and learning to participate in this most critical moment in American history. Connor notes that it was in the period of 1760–1775 that American sentiment shifted to “one of acquiescence in the traditional relationship with the mother country to a demand for a new order.” A few years later, a contemporary described Carroll as “a most flaming patriot and a red hot Politician,” but noted that his greatest contribution would be to argue “on philosophical grounds,” which he was more than capable of doing. He could rival, if not exceed, Thomas Jefferson’s erudition, with deep study in Horace, Cicero, Tacitus, Francisco Suárez, Robert Bellarmine, Montesquieu, David Hume, Blackstone, and Coke. The depth of his learning is difficult to plumb.
Carroll put the lie to accusations that he could not be a patriot and a Catholic. In a public exchange of letters in the Maryland Gazette, his lifelong adversary Daniel Dulany wrote that Carroll could not possibly support liberty and patriotism while at the same time profess Roman Catholicism, for to do so would be like “holding one candle to St. Michael and another to the dragon.” Birzer explains that it was precisely this prominent exchange of newspaper editorials that built Carroll’s reputation so that, his Roman Catholicism notwithstanding, he was recognized as a patriot and public intellectual of the first order.
Irrational bigotry, however, is hard to overcome, given that it is often emotional rather than reasonable. The First Continental Congress, convened in Philadelphia in 1774, described Catholicism as a religion liable to “deluge” a country “with blood,” and disperse “impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.” It was only two years later that the Second Continental Congress—with Carroll in attendance—issued the Declaration of Independence. Such inconsistency could only mean that Carroll was deeply respected.
John Adams, also in attendance, wrote to Benjamin Franklin that “in the Cause of American Liberty,” Carroll’s “Zeal, Fortitude, and Perseverance” were such that he was willing to endanger his fortune, his position, and his life in the cause of independence. Adams added that “this Gentleman’s Character, if I foresee aright will hereafter make a greater Figure in America.” In the course of the letter, Adams notes Carroll’s religion but seems indifferent to it. So taken was Adams with Charles Carroll the man that Charles Carroll the Roman Catholic was irrelevant. Birzer adds, “The normally anti-Catholic Adams was especially taken with the Carrolls and had been for quite some time.”
He thrived in a perilous place by sidestepping bigotry and making himself an indispensable leader.
Carroll not only put his “John Hancock” on the Declaration of Independence; even more remarkable, he outlived every other signatory, dying at the age of ninety-five. History (or legend) has it that as Carroll prepared to sign the Declaration, a fellow delegate remarked amiably that since there were so many Carrolls in the Maryland extended family that should the country fail to secure independence, soldiers from the mother country might not know which Carroll to pursue. Thereupon Carroll boldly wrote “Charles Carroll of Carrollton,” so that the British would know whom to hang.
Carroll’s Imprint on the Constitution
Although Carroll was not at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, he did influence it. Carroll held a healthy suspicion of democratic government—a tradition that began as far back as Plato—as did Madison and Hamilton. A succession of great thinkers through the centuries warned of the instability of democracies due to the excessive and unreasonable demands of the people. Democracy was also subject to an undue insistence on an exaggerated conception of equality that suppressed excellence. These concerns are as relevant today in the United States as ever: The innovation of “equity” is promoted as the defining principle of America rather than “freedom,” which allows for as much equality as individuals are willing to work for.
The United States, then, is designed not as a democracy in the pure sense, but as a republic, as Publius—the pen name Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay used—is careful to explain in Federalist Papers #10 and #14. This view, however, was disdained by radical patriots such as Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine. At a certain point, as Birzer explains, Carroll turned more controversial as, fearful that America could become radically democratic, he suggested that reunification with Great Britain might be reconsidered. Carroll also warned Benjamin Franklin that independence for the colonies would not be won “without a terrible struggle.”
The US Constitution, moreover, was designed as a “blended” form of government, taking the best elements of a monarchy (a strong presidency), an aristocracy (the Senate and the Supreme Court), and a democracy (the House of Representatives). It is this organizational complexity that would grant the new government stability. The design bears Carroll’s stamp: He was a principal architect of the Maryland Constitution, including the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Maryland Constitution, as Birzer notes, is cited in Federalist Paper #63 as an explanation of the US Senate.
What a Difference a Statesman Makes
Connor’s biography is intelligent and inviting. However, at times the author employs an excessive amount of block quotes, both in number and in length, that require more from the reader than should be necessary. These quotes appear in small font and in a writing style a couple of centuries old. The problem is easy to fix and should have been, though it does take time to break the quotes into several pieces and intersperse them with commentary.
In his impressive text, Birzer covers a great deal of theoretical ground in a relatively short work, at least “short” given the density of the subject. There are few complaints to be made. A reviewer must take what he can find: In Birzer’s rather dense explanation of Carroll’s view on the balance on democracy and aristocracy, more elaboration might be provided.
I’ll report back on X @HankEdmondson1 if I can find anything else.
But these are minor complaints and do not minimize the importance of these books. Connor’s is a fine biography of an essential figure of America’s founding; as he explains in his introduction, Birzer takes the interested reader further in better understanding Carroll’s political philosophy.
In a recent book, Rod Dreher has advocated “The Benedict Option” in which he argues that Christians must consider tactical retreats from an increasingly decadent and hostile society. Charles Carroll’s life offers not a refutation but a counterpoint to that thesis: He thrived in a perilous place by sidestepping bigotry and making himself an indispensable leader. He more than met his civic duties, employing all his education, intellect, virtue, money, time, and reputation to serve the burgeoning republic. Can we expect such of men and women today? We can only hope. As Carroll’s acquaintance Englishman Edmund Burke is said to have warned, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Although it is difficult to measure one’s legacy with precision, Carroll’s is daunting. It takes little imagination to say that were it not for him, we might not today have so many able Catholic men and women in our national government. No less than six out of nine Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, twenty-seven out of one hundred Senators are Catholic and one hundred twenty-two of four hundred thirty-five members of the House of Representatives are Catholic.
In this holiday season, hang the garland, enjoy the eggnog, and sing the Carrolls.
