I got it from a Roman Catholic Historian.
Do you recall the name of this person?
I don't know if it was before or after we became a country. But for a time, Protestants ruled Maryland. Roman Catholics were not allowed to run for office. From what I can recall, he said that it happened during a period when Protestants(In North America) didn't trust Roman Catholics. Something happened to cause this. I forgot what happened. But after it was ruled by Protestants. The ban of keeping Roman Catholics from taking office was eventually lifted.
One of the confusions here is you wrote "Puritans" in Maryland. Puritans were not the only sort of "Protestant" nor were most of the non-RC Christians "Puritan" in most of the British Colonies in North America. If the "Roman Catholic Historian" said that there were "Puritans" in Maryland I should very much like to know what his/her source material is for that. As I wrote above along with the Roman Catholics Maryland was Anglican/Church of England
. It was following the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 in which King James II was overthrown and William and Mary placed on the throne that control of the Colony of Maryland was taken from the "Lord Proprietary". A Royal Governor was installed and in 1692 the "Establishment Act" was enacted which created 31 Parishes of the Church of England. This did not drive RCs from the colony. It did not take their property or destroy their churches. It was a matter of politics among other things. Once the C 0f E was "established" I have read that RC churches weren't allowed to be built. However the first RC Cathedral, the Basilica in Baltimore was constructed from 1806-1821, still stands today and in fact had a major renovation a few years ago.
There were times when Roman Catholics were not allowed to hold office in Maryland, but that did not stop them from taking part in public life. Charles Carroll of Carrollton from Maryland signed the Declaration of Independence, the only Roman Catholic to do so. He also was publically active in other areas including the start of the B&O Railroad. At one time he was one of the richest men in the Colonies/United States. He had an RC chapel on his estate which still exists. He was the last surviving Signer of the Declaration.
Anti-RC feelings in politics were more in the 19th Century and part of it had to do with increased immigration.
You gotta watch EWTN. Sometimes they have specials. One of them went over the history of Maryland. I think I saw a similar documentary on TBN.
We don't have cable TV.
I wonder if these are ever put on DVD or on the 'Net.
My point about the British civil war, and the American Revolution was that Protestantism was meant to be spread by America. The English Separatists and Puritans wanted to be a light on the shiny Hill.
The Puritans under Oliver Cromwell couldn't do it in Britan, so it was eventually tried again in North America.
I mean no offense here, but the American Revolution happened because politics, economy and rights among other things. There were few if any "Puritans" around in the mid 1700s and none of the members of the Continental Congress were, as far as I know. The Parliamentarians/Cromwell's party were long gone, with the throne being restored when Charles II came back. I really do not follow your assertion that there is some binding link between the two besides the fact that they are both part of British History. The "Commonwealth" under Oliver Cromwell and his successor lasted from 1649 to 1660. It didn't have much affect in North America. The Colonies were not under the control of a single govermental unit but individual entities.
Are you thinking of "a city on a hill"? That is a phrase from John Winthrop, who *was* a Puritan, in 1630.
The boom in denominations is directly related to American Democracy. Our religious freedom makes it easy to form splinter groups.
I don't know about a "boom" but there were groups forming in other countries, not just the US. And as the Barrett numbers show a very large number of the groups are in Africa.
In regards to Puritanism. In that sense I was focused on the theology. Not the congregational denomination. In Theology, Puritans can be Congregationalist, Prespyterian, low church Anglican, and Baptist(English Separatist).
Well, on this point I would disagree with you. the name "Puritan" refers to a specific group from the 16th and 17th Centuries. As a religious group they do not exist today as far as I know. It is not the same or equal to "Protestant". What particular points of theology do you have in mind, please?
Many Puritans in North America eventually connected with the Church of Scotland, to form what is known as "Prespyterianism".
And you can find Prespyterians all over the North and South.
On this a person who knows more about the Presbyterians would have more information. But 21st Century Presbyterians are not "Puritans".
I don't know what Protestant denomination took over the state of MAryland away from the Roman Catholics, but according to what I saw on EWTN, it happened for a period of time when Protestants (In North America) were hostile towards Roman Catholics.
Church of England, see above, and it was take over from the Proprietor, the Third Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert, by the Throne. Here is a link to some information about the last one:http://mdroots.thinkport.org/library/charlescalvert.asp
And while the Calverts were RC, that the colonies, not just Maryland, were coming under Royal Governorship had to do with wealth, power and influence. Also, there were laws binding on RCs in England, it wasn't just in North America, and part of that can be traced back to various things in politics from the reigns of James I and Elizabeth.
edited for grammar