Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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).