Download Immigration v. Nativism - Willingboro School District

Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
This newspaper, published in 1852, lays out the case—in the most hostile terms—for
restricting immigration. The text at the top spells out the nativists' greatest fear:
"Already the enemies of our dearest institutions, like the foreign spies in the Trojan
horse of old, are within our gates. They are disgorging themselves upon us, at the rate
of Hundreds of Thousands Every Year! They aim at nothing short of conquest and
supremacy over us."
Library of Congress
The issue: Did the flood of immigrants into the United States in the 1840s and 1850s strengthen the
nation? Or did it pose such a threat to the nation that it should be restricted?

Arguments in favor of restricting immigration: Too many immigrants are coming to the
United States from Ireland and Germany. They compete with native-born Americans for jobs, and
their willingness to accept low pay decreases wage rates for everyone. Many of these immigrants
are drunkards, criminals, and paupers. They burden the courts and the nation's limited system of
social services. Irish and German immigrants threaten to alter the nation's identity—they bring with
them a devotion to the absolutist governments of Europe, and they look to their Roman Catholic
pope for leadership.

Arguments against restricting immigration: Restricting immigration would be a blow to
the economy. American industries cannot grow without a steadily increasing source of labor, which
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
immigrants supply. Furthermore, the nation's founding principles stand in opposition to placing
restrictions on immigrants once they are here. The Declaration of Independence proclaims that all
men—Irish and German immigrants included—are created equal, and the Bill of Rights in the U.S.
Constitution guarantees them freedom of religion. The main proponents of
restricting immigration are the Know Nothings, whose secrecy is itself a threat to America's system
of open government.
Background
During the growing season of 1845, a fungus known as late blight struck Ireland's potato crop. All
across the country, potatoes rotted in the fields and in storage cellars. Famine followed, for the
Irish—especially the poor living in the countryside—had come to rely on the potato for sustenance.
The fungus returned with a fury each of the following four years. As a result of the Irish Potato
Famine, more than a million Irish, largely Catholics, packed up their meager belongings and headed
for America. Masses of German Catholics emigrated around the same time, some because the
blight had ravaged the potato crop in the Rhine Valley and others because of growing
unemployment. At the time, no national law in the United States limited immigration. The flood of
Irish and German Catholics into the country in the 1840s and 1850s provoked urgent calls for
restrictions on immigration. The most strident voices came from the Know Nothings, a new political
party with strong anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic leanings.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
Ireland had long relied on the potato for its basic food supply. When blight destroyed a
large percentage of the potato crops in 1845, 1846, and 1848, the laboring population
had few choices. Nearly 1 million Irish died as a result of the famine; another million
chose to emigrate. Many fled from the heavily Catholic country to the United States, as
shown in this 19th-century print, "On Board an Emigrant Ship at the Time of the Irish
Famine."
© 19th era/Alamy
The United States had much to attract immigrants. Its abundance of fairly cheap land drew farmers
to the countryside. Its growing industries drew workers to the cities. Businesses
supported immigration, because they benefited from a deep labor pool—the greater the number of
immigrants looking for work, the cheaper the cost of labor. During the first half-century of its
existence, the United States added an average of just 7,000 or so immigrants per year. As the
country industrialized, the numbers rose. In 1830, some 23,000 new immigrants arrived. Ten years
later, the number had risen to 84,000. Then, with Irish and Germans pouring into the
country, immigration figures skyrocketed. During the decade 1845-1854, arrivals totaled 2.4 million,
reaching a peak in the year 1854 of 427,833.
In the 1840s, Irish and Germans began to pack into cities, especially along the Atlantic seaboard,
where passenger ships from Europe docked. The populations of Baltimore, Boston, New York, and
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
Philadelphia swelled, with some cities doubling, tripling, even quintupling in size from 1840 to 1860.
In time, some of these immigrants headed west, where they settled in cities such as Cincinnati,
Chicago, New Orleans, and St. Louis. This explosion of immigrants led to a variety of urban social
problems. Most large cities were ill-equipped to handle the growing population. Immigrants lived
wherever they could find shelter. In New York, families moved into the cold, damp cellars of existing
buildings. Others crowded into tenements—multistory buildings packed with small, sunless
apartments, often with unreliable plumbing. Poor sanitation in housing and in the streets encouraged
disease. Many immigrant neighborhoods became slums.
Population Growth of U.S. Cities, 1840–18601
City
1840
1860
Baltimore, Md.
102,313
212,418
Boston, Mass.
93,383
177,840
Brooklyn, N.Y.
36,233
266,661
4,470
112,172
Cincinnati, Ohio
46,338
161,044
New Orleans, La.
102,193
168,675
New York, N.Y.
312,710
813,669
Philadelphia, Pa.
93,665
565,529
St. Louis, Mo.
16,469
160,773
Chicago, Ill.
The Irish who arrived in the United States in the mid-19th century consisted mainly of rural peasants.
They were poor, and they had few skills to offer urban employers. The Germans included more
skilled workers and professionals, but many of them, too, were poor farmers. A substantial number
of all immigrants could not read or write or, in the case of the Germans, speak English. So they took
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
jobs wherever they could find them. They often dug ditches or worked on the docks unloading ships.
Some became teamsters—hauling freight around the city with a team of horses. Others helped build
roads, canals, and rail lines. Much of the work taken by immigrants was arduous, low-paying, and
temporary. Many of them remained unemployed for much of the year. Some turned to crime. Others
abused alcohol.
This 19th-century print, "From the Old to the New World," published in Harper's
Weekly shows Germans boarding a steamer to come to the United States. In the 1840s,
German immigrants began to pack into cities, especially along the Atlantic seaboard,
where passenger ships from Europe docked.
Kansas Historical Society
A number of native Americans—people born in the United States—cast a suspicious eye on the
immigrants streaming into the nation. They saw social problems multiplying in the cities. They saw
Roman Catholic churches sprouting in immigrant neighborhoods. They saw a huge new bloc of
voters who lacked any sense of American political ideals or customs. In short, in the massive influx
of immigrants, they saw trouble.
Some of these native Americans, alarmed at what they saw, came together in social groups. One
such organization, formed in New York City in 1849, called itself the Order of the Star Spangled
Banner. After a few years of slow growth this secret society began to spread, forming chapters
throughout much of the Northeast and as far afield as Kentucky and Texas. Its members swore not
to say a word about the organization, even that it existed. When asked about it, they would reply, "I
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
know nothing." They would later be dubbed the Know Nothings. [See Know Nothing Entrance
Examination, July 1854 (primary source)]
The Know Nothing social movement's driving force was its members' nativism—a policy of protecting
the interests of native-born citizens by strongly opposing immigrants. The Know Nothings
characterized the new, Catholic Irish and Catholic German immigrants as enemies of the American
way of life. At the time, anti-immigrant feelings already existed among the general, largely
Protestant, population of the United States. Before the Know Nothings arrived on the scene, those
feelings had occasionally led to violence. Nativists and Catholic immigrants had clashed since the
first years of the nation's history. In the 1830s and 1840s, the violence—sometimes prompted by the
immigrants themselves—had sparked riots in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other eastern
cities. With the widespread promotion of nativism by the Know Nothings, the violent, sometimes
deadly clashes continued in the East and elsewhere into the 1850s.
As the Know Nothing movement expanded, it took on more of a political character. Its leaders called
for severely restricting immigration and keeping existing immigrants from gaining any political
power. At first, Know Nothing chapters worked to influence local elections. They supported whatever
candidates from the major parties—the Whigs and the Democrats—subscribed to their anti-Catholic,
anti-immigrant, and, to a degree, antislavery ideology. They often put forward an entire slate of
candidates for whom all Know Nothings were expected to vote. Occasionally, an avowed Know
Nothing would run for local office. Through this process, the Know Nothings honed their political
skills.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
This lithograph, "Uncle Sam's Youngest
Son, Citizen Know Nothing," shows a
portrait of a man representing the nativist
ideal of the Know Nothing Party. The
party's driving force was its members'
nativism, a policy of protecting the interests
of native-born citizens by strongly opposing
immigrants as enemies of the American
way of life.
Library of Congress
Then, in 1854, they made a concerted effort to elect Know Nothing members to a variety of offices,
starting with municipal elections. They had some notable successes. A Know Nothing, nominated as
a member of the Whig Party, won the race for mayor of Philadelphia in June. In San Francisco in
September, another Know Nothing won election as mayor. By now, the Know Nothings had begun
rapidly draining members from the splintered Whig Party and were even attracting some from the
still-powerful Democratic Party. One Democratic member of Congress, Representative J. S. Millson
of Virginia, saw in this a fraudulent motive. In a speech to Congress, he said, "I cannot help
suspecting that the real object of the greater number [of Know Nothings] is to prostrate both the
parties, of Democrats and Whigs, that they may possess themselves of power and place."
[See Representative J. S. Millson, "The Know-Nothings," Speech, February 23, 1855 (primary
source)] Know Nothing influence in local and state elections, based on their rising membership,
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
continued to grow. By 1856, the Know Nothings—now, officially, the American Party—had elected 7
state governors, 8 U.S. senators, and 104 U.S. representatives. That year they nominated a
candidate for president of the United States.
By the mid-1850s, the Know Nothings had brought nativism to the forefront of the American political
stage. Their agenda focused on enacting laws related to stanching the flow of foreigners into the
country. They called for restricting immigration, expanding the naturalization period—the time
between arrival and eligibility for citizenship—from 5 to 20 or more years, and excluding the foreignborn from holding public office. The immigrants they targeted were Irish and German Catholics.
Their arguments reflected, and fed into, the fears that Americans had long harbored about the
Catholic Church. They maintained that Catholic immigrants retained allegiance to the pope and thus
could not be trusted to become solid American citizens. As a banner featured in "American
Citizens!," a broadside issued by the American Patriot, a nativist newspaper, in 1852, proclaimed,
"We Are Bound to Carry Out the Pious Intentions of His Holiness the Pope." [See American Patriot,
"American Citizens!," 1852 (primary source)] Only by restricting immigration, they argued, could this
Catholic threat be neutralized. Only by restricting immigration could cities end the buying of
immigrant votes by politicians and the brawling that hard-drinking Irish seemed to take such pleasure
in. Only by restricting immigration could American citizens restore their job security and defend
America's values and political ideals.
Opponents of restricting immigration also claimed to be defending American ideals. They quoted
from the Declaration of Independence, which stated unequivocally that "all men are created equal"—
Catholic immigrants notwithstanding. Those immigrants, like all human beings, had rights, one of
which was to worship as they pleased. Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune,
characterized the Know Nothings as "essentially anti-Foreign, especially anti-Irish, and anti-Catholic.
How can we regard any movement of this sort as other than hostile to the vital principles of our
Republic?" Another point made by those opposing restrictions on immigration was that for the
United States to expand economically, immigrant muscle was essential. Growing industries needed
a growing labor pool. By strengthening the economy, they argued, immigrants were strengthening
the nation.
A Tradition of Anti-Catholic Feelings
The United States was born a Protestant nation. The Puritans, arriving in Massachusetts Bay from
Protestant England in the early 1600s, were products of the Reformation, the huge religious
movement that swept parts of Europe in the 16th century that sought to reform the Roman Catholic
Church. As such, they held strong anti-Catholic views. Members of the Anglican Church who settled
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
farther south, in Virginia, exhibited the same intolerance toward Catholics—often referred to as
papists, or followers of the pope. Protestants' opinions of the Roman church were based partly on
fears that the pope, through Catholic France or Spain, might restore his supremacy over England—
and thus control all of the Americas. They referred to Catholic beliefs, disparagingly, as popery.
In the 1600s, the few Catholics in the British colonies in North America had settled mainly in
Maryland and Rhode Island, where toleration ruled. Anti-Catholic fears grew steadily, causing most
colonies to enact laws depriving Catholics of their civil or religious rights, or both. Typical was the
North Carolina statute that secured "full liberty of conscience to all, excepting Papists." Throughout
the 18th century, hatred of popery persisted throughout the American colonies. The French and
Indian War (1754-63) only served to intensify fears of papist plots against the colonies. So did the
Quebec Act, passed by Parliament in 1774, which called for toleration of Catholics in Quebec and
expanded that province into the Ohio Valley.
During the 1700s, large numbers of Irish and German Protestants immigrated to the American
colonies. By the time of the Revolutionary War (1775-83), they had become part of the fabric of
America, unlike many Catholics. The war itself served to blunt anti-Catholic sentiment to some
extent. Troops from Catholic France fought, sometimes side by side with American Protestants, to
defeat the British and preserve the infant United States of America. Nevertheless, after the
Revolution, the newly formulated constitutions of most states contained restrictions on Catholics.
However, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787, took a much more liberal and tolerant
view of Catholics. With immigration slowed to a trickle, fears of popery subsided. In the years that
followed, states began revising their constitutions to be more accepting of foreigners and Catholics.
An exception to this general liberality were the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by Congress in 1798,
which restricted the activities of aliens, or noncitizen residents, during a time of potential war with
France. These acts expired quietly after two years.
In the opening decades of the 19th century, as the United States expanded westward and
industrialization spread, immigration slowly increased. North Atlantic shipping lines, competing for
passengers, kept prices low. Northern Europeans, including Irish, arrived in steadily rising numbers
in search of land and jobs. Many of them never left the port cities in which their ships had docked.
These immigrants often arrived penniless. Until they found work, many relied on charity for survival.
Much of that charity came in the form of local government assistance. By the mid-1830s, for
example, New York City was spending more than $250,000 a year to care for its growing population
of paupers, most of whom were foreign-born. As this and other effects of immigration became more
apparent, nativism became more pronounced.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
In 1829 in Baltimore, Catholic leaders held a Provincial Council of Catholicity in America. One of the
aims of this council was to try to replace a number of foreign bishops with native-born bishops. The
leaders hoped that this would help quiet the growing nativist sentiment. But the same council also
issued dozens of sharply worded decrees aimed at keeping their parishes alert to the dangers
lurking in an overwhelmingly Protestant society. One decree urged Catholics to build more parochial
schools—institutions that would teach Catholic beliefs using the Catholic Bible. Far from dampening
nativism, the Baltimore Council provoked more Protestant alarm. Meanwhile, a Protestant religious
revival known as the Second Great Awakening (the first had occurred a century earlier) swept the
country. With it came an even more virulent anti-Catholicism. Protestants eagerly sought converts
among Catholics, and they organized societies and publications that were openly hostile toward
Catholics.
Cartoonist Thomas Nast changed miters, the hats worn by bishops, into crocodile heads
to show the fear that some Protestant Americans had of Catholics taking over schools
and government. This cartoon, published in Harper's Weekly in 1871, illustrates the
prevalence of anti-Catholic sentiment in the mid-and late 19th century.
Library of Congress
Nativists and Catholics Clash
Anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic feelings continued to fester among Protestants in the 1830s and 1840s.
Nativists questioned the right of foreigners to come to the United States, and they questioned their
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
political rights once they arrived. Samuel F. B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, wrote a lengthy
tract, published in 1835, in which he denied that any foreigner had a right to immigrate or, once here,
to participate in governing. [See Samuel F. B. Morse, Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of
the United States through Foreign Immigration, and the Present State of the Naturalization Laws,
1835 (primary source)] He wrote:
Neither natural rights, nor social right, nor any other right, nor any legitimate deductions from the
principles nor practice of the government give him the slightest claim, even personally to enter upon
the territory of the United States, much less to prefer a claim to share in the administration of its
affairs.
In 1836, Morse ran for mayor of New York City as a member of the Native American Democratic
Association, the first nativist political party in the United States. He lost that race, but his ideas
gained wide circulation, and he became an influential leader of the nativist cause. One of his
followers, Lyman Beecher, a Boston preacher, regularly attacked the pope and "the foul beast of
Roman Catholicism" in his sermons. Beecher became president of a political party founded by
Morse, called the American Protestant Union. Through this party, which had enough support in New
York to influence elections, Morse persuaded the Whig and Democratic parties in the city to agree
not to nominate any foreigners or Catholics for public office.
The American Protestant Union dominated the New York City school board. It used its control of the
board to order all of New York City's public schools to use the Protestant King James Bible in the
classroom. This provoked an outcry from the city's Catholics and their leader, Bishop John Hughes,
a native of Ireland. [See New York Herald, "Jamie & the Bishop," 1844 (primary source)] Hughes
spoke out strongly against the nativist attitude of the Protestants. He urged Catholics to make the
financial sacrifice needed to send their children to parochial schools, and he called on the local
government council to help fund those schools. New York's governor, William H. Seward, saw merit
in Hughes's proposal. The issue became the focus of citywide elections in 1841. Bishop Hughes
backed a third-party ticket consisting of Democrats who supported funding Catholic schools. Those
Democrats all won their races. Then Governor Seward set up a plan whereby the city's schools
became part of the state school system, and each city ward could establish its own curriculum.
Nevertheless, the reading of the King James Bible continued in nearly all of the city's classrooms.
The same was true in Philadelphia's public school classrooms. But there, the issue led to a series of
bloody riots. [See The Philadelphia Prayer Riots]
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
Expressions of hostility between new immigrants and nativists were not confined to political contests.
They sometimes took the form of physical assaults. Mob violence between Irish immigrants and
native Americans became commonplace in several eastern cities. Members of each group regularly
launched assaults against the other. In 1834, riots occurred in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
and Boston, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Rumor played a key role in an incident in
Charlestown, near Boston. Several nativist publications asserted that a young woman had "escaped"
from the Ursuline convent there but had mysteriously been persuaded to return. They suggested that
the woman, who taught music at the convent school, had been forced to return against her will. The
stories, though false, fed into the general anti-Catholic belief that convents, or nunneries, were dens
of vice and cruelty. Protestant preachers, including Lyman Beecher, stoked the passions of their
parishioners with tales of how Protestant students attending classes at the convent school were
being converted to popery. On the night of August 11, 1834, a Protestant mob attacked the convent
and burned it to the ground.
The Rise of the Know Nothings
The Know Nothings began as a social organization called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner.
This group sprang up in response to the torrent of Irish and German immigrants entering the United
States in the late 1840s and their increasing political power in the cities. As the Know Nothing
movement grew, so did its effect on public opinion. It became a political pressure group, continually
pushing the major parties to enact nativist policies. In just a few years, the Know Nothings had,
themselves, developed into a political party. The Know Nothing/American Party arrived on the scene
so quickly and with such force that some referred to it as the "surprise party." [See The Know
Nothing Organization]
Several factors contributed to the early success of the Know Nothing movement. One was its
mysterious nature. The secret oaths, rituals, passwords, and handshakes attracted many
Americans. But the main reasons for its rapid growth had to do with the organization's basic goal: to
restrict immigration. The nativist ideology appealed to Protestants' long-standing fear and hatred of
Catholics. Protestants responded positively to Know Nothing calls to extend the naturalization period
in order to keep immigrant Irish and German Catholics from acquiring political power. Nativism also
appealed to native American urbanites in the North, who saw first-hand the effects that the rapid
influx of immigrants was having on their cities, from the growth of slums to competition for jobs.
Many Americans also responded positively to Know Nothing support of the temperance movement—
which aimed to outlaw the distribution and sale of intoxicating liquor. Temperance-minded Know
Nothings targeted immigrants, using a common stereotype. They blamed whiskey-guzzling Irish and
beer-swilling Germans for many of society's ills.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
This cartoon depicting an Irish and a German immigrant stealing a ballot box reveals
pro-nativist attitudes toward immigrants who were viewed as a threat to the nation's
identity. Nativists argued that only by restricting immigration, specifically of alcoholdrinking Irish and German Catholics, could American citizens maintain the integrity of
the nation’s political system.
Library of Congress
As the Know Nothings became more involved in politics, they shined a light on another immigrantrelated concern: political corruption. They focused on the lavish use of patronage by existing political
parties. Patronage can be as innocuous as helping the needy find food or a place to live. The Know
Nothings accused the Whig and Democratic parties of something more grievous: paying immigrants
for their votes. Professional politicians realized that to win in the rapidly expanding cities, they
needed immigrant support at the polls and that money or other gifts were a sure means to secure it.
A significant number of them engaged in this practice. Politicians also rewarded their immigrant
allies through the spoils system—the appointing of loyal supporters to government jobs. At the time,
this was a standard practice, backed by the saying "To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy" (in
which spoils referred to property taken by the victor in war). Nativists complained that way too many
immigrants were being appointed to positions of responsibility in the government.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
The committees referred to in this nativist
cartoon on political corruption represented
different factions of New York City's
Democratic Party, each of which aimed to
win elections by buying votes. The
"Democratic Voter"—an Irishman—says,
"As I'm a hindependent Helector, I means
to give my Vote according to conscience
and him as Tips most!"
Library of Congress
One additional factor played an important role in the Know Nothings' transition from a social
movement to a viable political party. Many of the group's Northern members espoused antislavery
along with anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism. (Wry observers called them Know Somethings.)
One link between these positions was that European immigrants, coming from a culture that
respected class distinctions, tended to support slavery. Another link was that immigration and
slavery, from the Know Nothing perspective, both posed a threat to the American way of life. Theirs
was not a radical abolitionist antislavery—that would have undermined attempts to lure conservative
Whigs to the party. But it was just robust enough to attract Americans who were looking for an
alternative to the disintegrating Whig Party. The 1852 presidential election revealed how fractured
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
the Whigs had become, mainly over the question of slavery. They lost to the Democrats by an
Electoral College vote of 254-42, winning only Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
By 1854, the Know Nothings had developed into a loose coalition of nativist, temperance, and
antislavery groups. As Gamaliel Bailey, editor of abolitionist newspaper The National Era, wrote in
October 1854: "It is unfair to attempt to identify the new Party with any political organization. It is
composed of recruits from all Parties, and regarded with tolerance or favor by many who consider it
merely temporary, and do not choose to connect themselves with it." [See Gamaliel Bailey, "Rights
of Naturalized Citizens: The Know-Nothings," October 24, 1854 (primary source)] Bailey's analysis
would prove insightful, but whether temporary or not, the "new Party" could claim broad appeal
among voters. During the following two years, the Know Nothings parlayed that appeal into a string
of victories in local and state elections, especially in the North. With the Whig collapse and the
subsequent rise of several smaller parties seeking to fill the void, the Know Nothings could often win
an election with less than a majority of the vote.
Elections in Massachusetts in the spring of 1854 revealed the Know Nothings' newfound political
clout. They had already enjoyed some success in the state, electing mayors in a number of towns,
including Boston and Salem. Now, in statewide elections, the Know Nothings swept to power in a
landslide, capturing the largest number of votes of any party in Massachusetts history. They won the
governorship and took control of the state legislature, grabbing all but 3 of the more than 400 open
seats. That year, they also enjoyed success—often by fusing with other parties—in Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
A manufacturer in Boston exploited the
Know Nothing phenomenon by producing
and selling “Know Nothing soap.” The
images of American Indians and the
American flag in this advertisement allude
to the nativist movement.
Library of Congress
The rapid rise in popularity of the Know Nothings fascinated the entire nation. Sensing an
opportunity, shrewd businesspeople leaped into action. They met or, perhaps, created consumer
demand with products such as "Know Nothing Candy," "Know Nothing Tea," and even "Know
Nothing Toothpicks." The party had become a cultural phenomenon.
Why was 1854 a banner year for the Know Nothings? For one thing, the near collapse of the Whig
Party after the 1852 election meant that the Democrats had become the country's single major party
and the main target of the other parties. Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 by a
Democratic Congress caused outrage in the North. This act, in effect, repealed the Missouri
Compromise of 1820, ending Congress's ability to control the expansion of slavery into the
territories. It called for popular sovereignty in the newly created Kansas and Nebraska territories,
allowing settlers to determine their territory's slave or free status. Many Democrats fled the party for
the Know Nothings.
The Know Nothings believed that their ideology, centered on restricting immigrationand limiting
immigrants' power, reflected established American-Protestant values. If they could get their message
out to enough people, they reasoned, they could garner the support necessary to become the
nation's second major party. In 1855, the Know Nothings' political success at the state level
continued. They gained control of the legislature in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island. That year, they claimed to have a million members across the
country. The Know Nothings had every reason to believe that their newly christened American Party
would move from Northern state successes to national victory. As the presidential election of 1856
approached, however, the political winds shifted against them.
Politics Dooms the Know Nothings
Once in office, Know Nothings worked to create legislation that would serve their nativist ideology. In
various states they sought to keep illiterate immigrants from voting by requiring potential voters to
take literacy tests. They called for longer residency requirements before naturalization. They also
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
pushed for the enactment of church property laws, aimed at keeping Catholic bishops and other
clergy from owning real estate. They had some success in these state-level efforts. In Congress,
however, where they held around 50 of the 234 seats in the House of Representatives in the 185557 session, they did not fare so well. Despite having one of their own members, Nathaniel Banks, as
Speaker of the House, the Know Nothings failed to pass their signature legislation, the extension of
the naturalization period to 21 years. Neither could they pass another measure they strongly
advocated, a ban on "foreign paupers, criminals, idiots, lunatics, insane, and blind persons."
The Know Nothings had grown up as a nativist organization. Its members, largely working-class
Americans, argued that immigration needed to be limited and immigrants kept out of the political
system. But along the way, the party recognized the value of maintaining, if not expanding, the
antislavery plank of its budding platform. In a letter written in 1855, Wiley P. Harris, a Democratic
member of Congress from Mississippi, confirmed this shift in policy: "It is now evident that, so far
from being a national non-intervention party, it has become the representative of the most
determined, unrelenting and aggressive anti-slavery spirit." [See Representative Wiley P.
Harris, Letter to Colonel J. F. H. Clairborne, March 15, 1855 (primary source)]
The Know Nothing/American Party, however, was not the only political party showing an "antislavery spirit." It had a competitor. In July 1854, antislavery activists had formed the Republican
Party. This was, essentially, a sectional party, centered in the North and based almost exclusively on
opposition to the expansion of slavery to the territories. Its leaders knew that, to succeed, the
Republican Party would have to draw members not only from the Democratic and Whig parties but
also from the Know Nothings. They relentlessly sought converts among the Northern Know
Nothings. Their job was made easier by the national—not sectional—nature of the American Party.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
Millard Fillmore, the Know Nothing
candidate for president in 1856 (and who
had served as president as a Whig from
1850 to 1853), declared that the mass of
foreign voters was "fast demoralizing the
whole country; corrupting the ballot box—
that great palladium of our liberty—into an
unmeaning mockery where the rights of
native born citizens are voted away by
those who blindly follow their mercenary
and selfish leaders."
American Party
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
In the 1850s, to be a national party meant pleasing proslavery Southerners and antislavery
Northerners at the same time. The American Party needed to keep all of its coalition partners
together if it had any chance to win the ultimate prize, the presidency of the United States. It aimed
to use the strong social organization of its chapters to maintain party loyalty. This turned out to be an
impossible task. The American Party's North-South divergence over slavery was so great that
commentators began referring to the two groups as "North Americans" and "South Americans." The
breakup came at the party's national convention in Philadelphia in February 1856. The party's
platform, drawn up by its national council, included several articles spelling out standard nativist
demands. [See American Party Platform, 1856 (primary source)] However, the platform also
supported popular sovereignty in the territories, the essence of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Antislavery delegates—mainly from New England and Ohio—objected vehemently, but their
resolution opposing popular sovereignty was soundly defeated. They subsequently abandoned the
convention. The remaining delegates chose former President Millard Fillmore as their presidential
candidate, even though he was not actually a Know Nothing.
After the convention Northern Know Nothings fled in great numbers to the recently founded
Republican Party. Their support was not enough for the Republicans, led by John C. Frémont, to win
the White House in 1856. With 114 electoral votes, Frémont finished second to Democrat James
Buchanan, who won 174 electoral votes. Fillmore finished a poor third, with 8 electoral votes (and
less than 22 percent of the popular vote). By this time, it was evident that the question of slavery was
of paramount concern to the nation. It would be resolved only by the Civil War. The issue
of immigration, stirred up by the Know Nothings, had been pushed into the shadows, as had the
Know Nothings themselves. Editor Horace Greeley offered this epitaph for the party:
[F]or a brief season it seemed destined to sweep all before it, and remodel our institutions into
conformity with its ideas. But its apparent strength was largely factitious,—men of diverse parties, of
radically incompatible views and purposes, using its machinery to further their several ends, and
discarding it whenever such use was precluded or defeated. The fact that almost every "KnowNothing" was at heart a Whig or a Democrat, a champion or an opponent of Slavery, and felt a
stronger, deeper interest in other issues than in those which affiliated him with the "Order," rendered
its disruption and abandonment a question, not of years, but of months.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
The Case for Restricting Immigration and Immigrants
To many nativists, placing restrictions on immigration and immigrants was really a matter of limiting
Catholic influence in America. Nativists believed in Americanism: Americans, they argued, should
rule America, and by "Americans" they meant Protestant Americans. The Irish and German
immigrants who entered the country in the 1840s and 1850s were mainly Catholics. Nativists warned
that these immigrants owed their allegiance to the pope, who favored absolute monarchy over
democracy. [See "The Propagation Society. More Free than Welcome," 1855 (primary source)] "It is
a fact," nativist leader Samuel F. B. Morse wrote in 1835, that Popery is opposed in its very nature to
Democratic Republicanism; and it is, therefore, as a political system, as well as religious, opposed to
civil and religious liberty, and consequently to our form of government." Some nativists took this
"fact" a step further, stating that legions of Catholics were sent to this country to overthrow its
democratic government. Elemental to this entire argument was a hallowed principle of American
government: the separation of church and state.
Proponents of restricting immigration pointed out the huge burden on society posed by the masses
of immigrants entering America's cities. Most entered the country with little more than the clothes on
their backs, and some nativists claimed that Europe was shipping its paupers to America to get rid of
them. Poor immigrants relied on the government for their survival, and native-born Americans
complained that they were forced to support these foreigners through ever-rising taxes. Nativists
claimed that immigrants habitually turned to crime, clogging the courts with their petty and not-sopetty misdeeds. A plank in the American Party platform of 1856 was directed at these issues. It
called for "excluding all paupers or persons convicted of crime from landing upon our shores."
Nativists also pointed to a rise in public violence, blaming it, in part, on the propensity of the Irish to
engage in drunken brawls. "Who are the political, street, canal and railroad rioters?" the editor of
the Native American, an anti-immigrant newspaper, asked in 1844. His answer: "Foreigners! Men
always ready and prepared to enter into any fray, whose object may be to resist the authorities."
Immigration also needed to be restricted, nativists argued, for economic reasons. The flood of
immigrants greatly expanded the labor pool. In a letter in 1855, Representative Wiley P. Harris of
Mississippi emphasized that "foreign labor and skill is brought in competition with native American
labor and skill." Foreigners competed unfairly with Americans, nativists charged, because they would
take any job offered to them at any wage. This posed dire economic consequences for native-born
workers who were pushed out of jobs, they claimed, and those who managed to find work were
forced to accept low pay.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
In the highly charged political atmosphere of the period before the Civil War, the issue of immigrants
in official government positions riled many native Americans, especially the Know Nothings. They
complained that the two major parties, the Democrats and the Whigs, curried favor with the
immigrant masses in order to get their votes. Millard Fillmore, the Know Nothing candidate for
president in 1856 (and who had served as president as a Whig from 1850 to 1853), declared that the
mass of foreign voters was "fast demoralizing the whole country; corrupting the ballot box—that
great palladium of our liberty—into an unmeaning mockery where the rights of native born citizens
are voted away by those who blindly follow their mercenary and selfish leaders." Nativists also
accused politicians not only of paying for votes but also of giving an inordinate number of important
jobs to their immigrant supporters. Patronage became a national issue in 1853, when President
Franklin Pierce appointed a Catholic, James Campbell, his postmaster general. As head of the Post
Office Department, Campbell was in a position to give jobs to many other Catholics across the
nation. A Pennsylvania newspaper editor said that this department "should never have been given
into the hands of a Jesuit who appoints his followers in every little country office."
The Case Against Restricting Immigration and Immigrants
Opponents of restricting immigration and immigrants often cited the nation's founding principles,
including freedom of religion and human equality. They cited Article VI of the U.S. Constitution,
which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States." They also cited the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states
that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." Their equality argument derived from the Declaration of Independence, which
proclaims, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." In the increasingly tense decades before the Civil War, that equality principle
was being tested daily in the debate over slavery. In 1855, former Whig representative Abraham
Lincoln of Illinois made it clear that he opposed putting limits on immigrants by drawing a parallel
between his positions on slavery and on nativism. "I am not a Know-Nothing," the future president
wrote. "That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be
in favor of degrading classes of white people?" [See Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Joshua F. Speed,
August 24, 1855 (primary source)]
Contrary to nativist complaints about foreign workers, opponents of restricting immigration believed
that immigrants' labor and skills enhanced the productivity of the American workforce. At a time
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
when industry was growing rapidly, they argued, the expansion of the labor pool could only help the
U.S. economy. Officials and firms intent upon building canals, bridges, railroads, and other internal
improvements welcomed the cheap labor offered by the immigrant masses.
Those who opposed restricting the right of immigrants to serve in the government, many of them
Democrats and Whigs, offered a spirited defense of the spoils system. Thurlow Weed, a journalist
who helped found the Whig Party, referred to the replacing of existing state officials with loyal
supporters as the doctrine of "rotation in office." Every "elector," or voter, he argued, was an eligible
officeholder. "The elector," he wrote, "who aspires to a subordinate office, as a reward for political
service, is as well entitled to his place as those who seek the higher position" of governor, secretary
of state, and so forth. Immigrants, these politicians and others contended, had the same right as the
native-born American to vote for whomever they wished and to accept public office if offered. In
Weed's words, they had the right to "discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of Freemen."
Catholic immigrants, themselves, mounted a defense of their rights to participate in American politics
and way of life. They insisted that they had no intention of undermining the government of the United
States. They pointed out that popes no longer had the political power that they once had, that
European monarchs no longer feared that the pope could dethrone them. Nativists' fears, they
charged, were thoroughly unfounded.
In addition to challenging the nativist ideology, opponents of restricting immigrationalso attacked
the main purveyor of that ideology, the Know Nothing Party. Americans, they argued, distrusted the
"unrepublican secrecy" of the Know Nothings. As Mississippi representative Wiley P. Harris
explained, "The exaction of an oath or pledge of secrecy and fidelity in this country by a political
party, is a confession that the cause in which it is enlisted is incapable of inspiring attachment or
respect."
Outcome and Impact
The question of whether or not to restrict immigration lost out to the more pressing question of how
to resolve the issue of slavery. The Know Nothings, the most potent force for placing limits
on immigration and on immigrants in the 1850s, lost out to a Republican Party that focused solely
on antislavery. All the arguments for keeping foreigners in check, although they appealed to a broad
segment of the American voting public, paled in comparison with the passions generated by the
antislavery movement. Know Nothings' antislavery rhetoric was notably tepid; the slavery plank in
the American Party's 1856 platform, in fact, called for maintaining the existing laws.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
As it turned out, the Whigs, Democrats, and others who had fled their parties for the American Party
in 1854 were mobile. They did not necessarily join because they favored a nativist approach
to immigration. Many of them joined because the Know Nothings seemed to be the party of the
moment, with national rather than secular goals, the best vehicle for calming sectional tensions and
unifying the country. When it became clear that the newly formed Republican Party had the better
ideology for capturing Northern votes, former Whig and Democratic politicians joined in droves, and
Northern voters, in the 1856 election, followed them. The Know Nothing Party collapsed, and with it
the movement to restrict immigration lost its loudest voice. As a result, the national government
placed no restrictions on immigration, and America remained open to all newcomers for another
generation. Not until 1882, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, would the United
States begin to limit immigration.
What If the Know Nothings had succeeded in persuading the U.S.
government to restrict immigration?
In 1855, the Know Nothings seemed poised to become the second major national party in the United
States. What if that had happened? What if the recently formed Republican Party had folded instead
of the American Party? What if, as a result, the restriction of immigration had become U.S.
government policy?
The Know Nothings had a legitimate opportunity to become the Democrats' main challenger. Their
nativist proposals had widespread support throughout much of the North and, with a bit less
enthusiasm, in the South. Americans seemed to back their call for fewer immigrants and for limits on
the ability of newer immigrants to participate in politics and governing. If the Know Nothings had
been better political strategists and had been able to avoid a North-South split over slavery, they
might have won the loyalty of enough of the electorate to become a major party instead of fading into
oblivion. They might have been able to push their nativist agenda through Congress.
Had the American Party been more successful, the restriction of immigration might have had
lasting political consequences. By the mid-1850s, a key goal of the Know Nothings was the revision
of the naturalization laws. At the time, a new immigrant had to maintain permanent residency in the
United States for five years before becoming a citizen. The Know Nothings wanted to expand the
period to 21 years. Had they succeeded, immigrants not only would have had to wait far longer
before gaining the right to vote but also would have been shut out of political office for far longer.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
Immigration restriction also would have had significant economic and social effects.
Strict immigration quotas, or legal limits on the number of immigrants coming into the country,
might have been enacted. Fewer immigrants would have meant fewer laborers. The construction of
railroads and other infrastructure and of industry in general might have been severely hampered.
The transcontinental railroad, built largely by immigrant labor from Ireland and China in the 1860s,
would likely have been constructed far later, slowing national economic development. Socially, with
fewer immigrants streaming into the cities, the burden on urban governments to supply services
would have been lighter. Also, a lower population density might have allowed for better sanitation
and thus improved the health of city residents. More broadly, American society would have remained
more Protestant and more traditional. Restrictions on immigration would have slowed the infusion
of new cultures and ideas and lessened the nation's diversity.
Bibliography
Anbinder, Tyler. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the
1850s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Billington, Ray Allen. The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860. New York: Macmillan, 1938.
Danver, Steven L., ed. "Philadelphia Nativist Riots (1844)." In Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations,
and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia, vol. 1. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO,
2011.
Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil
War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Mulkern, John R. The Know-Nothing Party in Massachusetts: The Rise and Fall of a People's
Movement. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990.
Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.
Sewell, Richard H. Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States, 1837-1860. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Immigration v. Nativism –The Controversy After The Civil War
Footnotes
1. Census Bureau. "Population of the 100 Largest Urban
Places." http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/twps0027.html.
Citation Information
MLA
Chicago Manual of Style
Fasulo, David F. “Nativism and the Know Nothings.” May 1, 2013. Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase
Learning. http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=134411 (accessed January 6, 2017).