   #copyright

Ursuline Convent Riots

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: North American History

   The Ursuline Convent Riots were riots occurring on August 11 and August
   12, 1834 in Charlestown, Massachusetts, near Boston. In the riot, a
   convent of Roman Catholic Ursuline nuns was burned down. The event was
   triggered by reported abuse of a member of the order, and was fuelled
   by the rebirth of extreme anti-Catholic sentiment in antebellum New
   England.

Background

   In 1820, the Most Reverend Jean-Louis Lefebvre de Cheverus, bishop of
   the newly created diocese of Boston, granted permission for the
   establishment of a convent of Ursuline teaching nuns in a building next
   to the cathedral. A school for girls was set up in the convent, in
   which approximately 100 students were enrolled.

   By 1827, the school and convent had outgrown the building. In July of
   that year, the community moved to a larger building on Ploughed Hill
   (later Mount Benedict), in Charlestown. The school began to enroll
   primarily the daughters of the Protestant upper classes of Boston; by
   1834 there were forty-seven students, only six of whom were Catholic.
   According to Jenny Franchot, the author of a history of the riots, the
   presence of a community of Catholic religious in their midst reminded
   Protestant Bostonians of the increasing influx of Irish Catholics, who
   were taking over the labor market. The Ursuline convent thus emphasized
   both the economic discomfort felt by non-Catholics in general, and the
   religious discomfort felt by conservative Protestants such as the
   Reverend Lyman Beecher. In late July and early August of 1834, this
   unease came to a head and fomented a riot.

Rebecca Reed

   Rebecca Reed was a young Episcopalian woman from Boston who had
   attended the school in 1831 as a charity scholar: a day student for
   whom the convent waived tuition fees. In 1832, she declared her
   intention to enter the Ursuline novitiate, but left the convent after
   six months as a postulant. At some time after her departure, she began
   writing a manuscript entitled Six Months in a Convent. Although not
   published until 1835, some versions of the manuscript apparently
   circulated among the primarily Protestant student community, and
   versions of it may have gained wider circulation in Charlestown. Some
   authors, including a former student at the school, have speculated that
   discussion of the manuscript may have contributed to the anti-Catholic
   sentiment which incited the riots.

   Reed described the convent as a prison, where young girls were forced
   into Catholicism, with grotesque punishment for those who refused. This
   book, along with a growing number of propaganda magazines including the
   Christian Watchman and Boston Recorder, stoked the fires of
   anti-Catholicism in Boston and the surrounding area.

July–August, 1834

   On the evening of July 28, 1834, Sister Mary John (Miss Elizabeth
   Harrison), a nun teaching at the convent, made her way to the home of
   Edward Cutter, a resident of Charlestown. According to Mr. Cutter's
   account, she "appeared to be considerably agitated, and expressed her
   wish to be conveyed to the residence of an acquaintance in West
   Cambridge" The next day, after he had carried out her request, he
   returned to the acquaintance's house to ask why she had decided to
   leave the convent. Mr. Cutter was informed that Sister Mary John had
   returned to the convent, accompanied by her superior, Mother Mary St.
   George, and the current bishop of Boston, the Most Reverend Benedict
   Fenwick.

   Local papers, on hearing rumors of the story, began publishing accounts
   of a "mysterious woman" (Prioli) kept against her will in the convent.
   As the accounts spread, concern over the fate of the "mysterious woman"
   (who may have been conflated with Rebecca Reed) appears to have incited
   the largely Protestant workmen of Boston to take action:

     On Sunday morning, August 10, placards were found posted in several
     parts of Boston saying: "To the Selectmen of Charlestown!!
     Gentlemen: It is currently reported that a mysterious affair has
     lately happened at the Nunnery in Charlestown, now it is your duty
     gentlemen to have this affair investigated immediately[;] if not the
     Truckmen of Boston will demolish the Nunnery thursday [sic]
     night—August 14."

The First Riot: August 11, 1834

   By the end of the first week of August, both Mr. Cutter and the
   Charlestown selectmen were sufficiently disturbed by the rumors of
   impending action against the convent that they decided to investigate
   the situation further. With the permission of the Mother Superior, Mr.
   Cutter returned to the convent to interview Sister Mary John on August
   9. He reported that he

     was informed by her that she was at liberty to leave the Institution
     at any time she chose. The same statement was also made by the
     Superior, who farther remarked, that, in the present state of public
     feeling, she should prefer to have her leave.

   . On Monday, August 11, a group of selectmen was admitted to the
   convent and given a detailed tour by Sister Mary John. That afternoon,
   the selectmen prepared a statement for publication in the Boston
   Gazette Tuesday morning. The statement was intended to reassure the
   public that the woman was in good health, that she was not being held
   against her will, and that the convent was fit to live in.

   Although rumors of a planned disturbance had reached the convent by
   August 11, neither the nuns, the students, nor the parents appeared to
   believe that anything serious would occur. Franchot even reports one
   student comparing the day to a holiday.

   At about 8:00 on the evening of August 11, a group of angry Protestant
   citizens gathered outside the door to the convent. They began to call
   for the release of the "mysterious lady". A witness to the riot
   reported that a nun came to the window and asked the crowd to disperse.
   According to this witness, on seeing the nun, the crowd offered their
   protection to the nun. At this point the mother superior appeared and
   stated that the nuns did not need any sort of protection, and that the
   entire household was in bed. She further threatened the crowd with
   retaliation from the Catholic population of Boston: "The Bishop has
   twenty thousand of the vilest Irishmen at his command, and you may read
   your riot act till your throats are sore, but you'll not quell them."

   The crowd eventually dispersed, only to return several hours later. At
   about 11:00, a crowd of between fifty and sixty men (as estimated by
   the Boston Evening Transcript; the Mercantile Journal estimated the
   crowd as between 150 and 200) set fire to tar barrels on the convent
   grounds. Several fire companies were called to the scene, but failed to
   intervene, instead joining a crowd of spectators, which eventually grew
   to around 2000 people.

   Soon after the tar barrels had been set alight, the crowd broke down
   doors and windows to enter the convent, and began to ransack the
   buildings. The nuns and pupils began to leave from the back, and hid in
   the garden. At about midnight, the rioters set fire to the buildings,
   which burned to the ground within an hour or two.

Response: The Faneuil Hall, Charlestown, and Cathedral Meetings

   At 11:00 the following morning, Theodore Lyman, the mayor of Boston,
   invited the public to a meeting at Faneuil Hall to discuss "measures
   relative to the riot at Charlestown". The meeting took place at 1:00
   that afternoon, and led to the adoption of a resolution which, among
   other things, nominated a committee to investigate the riot and events
   leading up to it. The resolution expressed the community's outrage at
   the events and provided for a reward to anyone providing information on
   the leaders of future similar events, as well as directing the
   investigative committee to discuss the possibility of indemnifying the
   diocese of Boston for the loss of property, which was not covered by
   insurance.

   The selectmen of Charlestown also called a public meeting on August 12,
   passing similar resolutions condemning the violence. The resolution
   also set up a "Committee of Vigilance", with authority to investigate
   the incident and offer a reward for information leading to the arrest
   of the perpetrators.

   On the same day, Bishop Fenwick called a meeting of the Catholic
   citizenry of the Boston area. He encouraged the audience to forego
   revenge as incompatible with "the religion of Jesus Christ". He also
   thanked the public authorities for their stand against the violence,
   and expressed confidence that they would prevent further outbreaks from
   occurring.

The Second Riot: August 12, 1834

   In keeping with the resolutions, Mayor Lyman ordered troops and police
   to be stationed not only around Faneuil Hall, but at the city arsenal,
   the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the Catholic church in Charlestown,
   and the house of Edward Cutter. Notably, no troops were posted around
   the remains of the convent.

   At about 10:00 on the evening of Wednesday, August 12, a crowd gathered
   outside the arsenal. Finding it guarded, they moved first to the
   cathedral, then to the city hall, and finally to the convent itself. At
   the convent, they destroyed the gardens and orchards, set bonfires, and
   pulled down fences. The mob left the grounds and dispersed a few hours
   later.

Investigation, Arrests, and Trial

   The committee established by Mayor Lyman met every day except Sunday
   from 13 August to 27 August. Testimony heard by this committee, and by
   the Charlestown selectmen's committee, led to thirteen arrests, of
   which eight were for the capital crimes of arson or burglary.

   The trials of the defendants began on 2 December 1834 with the trial of
   John R. Buzzell, the self-confessed ringleader of the mob. State
   Attorney General James T. Austin protested the early date of the trial,
   since death threats had been issued against any potential witnesses for
   the prosecution. Buzzell himself later stated, "The testimony against
   me was point blank and sufficient to have convicted twenty men, but
   somehow I proved an alibi, and the jury brought in a victory of not
   guilty, after having been out for twenty-one hours.". Eventually,
   twelve of the thirteen defendants were acquitted. The thirteenth, a
   sixteen-year-old who had participated in book-burning at the riot, was
   convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. He was
   pardoned by the governor in response to a petition signed by five
   thousand citizens of Boston, including Bishop Fenwick and Sister Mary
   St. George.

Restitution

   The investigative committee formed by Mayor Lyman had recommended that
   the city of Charlestown or the county of Middlesex indemnify the
   diocese of Boston for the loss of the convent property; or, if they did
   not act, that the Massachusetts legislature investigate the matter and
   provide compensation. Following this recommendation, Bishop Fenwick
   petitioned the legislature in January 1835 for indemnification to
   rebuild the convent and school, arguing that the state had been
   derelict in its duty of protecting private property.

   The committee which heard the argument of the diocese resolved that the
   legislature authorize the governor to provide compensation to the
   trustees of the convent. The resolution was defeated by an overwhelming
   majority on the floor of the House.

   Similar proposals for restitution were brought before the assembly in
   1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844. Each time, the motion to indemnify the
   diocese failed. In 1846, the assembly voted to provide the diocese with
   $10,000. The diocese rejected the offer, estimating the actual loss at
   approximately $100,000. The request was presented again to the assembly
   in 1853 and 1854, and again was defeated each time.

Historical Interest in the Events

   As noted in the Bibliography section below, Wilfred Bisson (1989) and
   Nancy Lusignan Schultz (2000,2002) have both published historical
   accounts of the period in question.It should be noted that there is
   seemingly less interest in Rebecca Reed's account and the ensuing
   events at Charlestown than in Maria Monk's later account, which has
   undergone successive reprintings since 1836. Reed's account has
   received no such detailed analysis other than Bisson and Schultz
   (below).
   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursuline_Convent_Riots"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
