Speech of Mr. James Dixon, of Connecticut, on the subject of the naturalization laws : and the origi SPEECH OP MR. JAMES DIXON, OF CONNECTICUT, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS, AND THE ORIGIN OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN PARTY. Delivered m the House of Representatives U. S.y December 30 , 184*5 ^ WASHINGTON: PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 1846 . Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/speechofmrjamesddixo SPEECH. Mr. DIXON addressed the House as follows: Mr. Speaker: Had the debate ou this subject been confined to the ques- tion appropriately before the House, I should have made no objection to the Teference of the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, to any committee which the friends of the measures therein recommended might have desired. But, since the discussion has taken so wide a range as to embrace the whole question of what is called Native Americanism , and the vote on the question of reference is likely to be understood as a test of our opinions on the general subject under consideration, I cannot consent to re- cord my vote as in favor of the doctrines of the Native American party. The true question now to be decided is, not the question of reference, but whether this House will authorize the conclusion that its members are wil- ling to extend any degree of favor to these doctrines. What, then, are the principles of this new party? If I understand them they are, first, an extension of the time required by the existing law before naturalization is permitted; and, secondly, the disfranchisement of all for- eign born citizens, by declaring them ineligible to public office. I am aware that the resolutions before us do not go that length, but these, I think, are among the acknowledged principles of the party. Now, sir, while I am willing to go as far as any one in preserving the purity of the ballot-box, I have no hesitation in declaring my entire and decided opposition to both these principles. The period of probation now required before naturaliza- tion is, in my humble judgment, sufficiently long, and I am opposed to its extension: still more am I opposed to that narrow bigotry which would deny to the foreigner the right to hold office . If the people choose to select for any office within their gift one not born upon our soil, they ought to have the privilege of so doing, without any restriction whatever. To them the question of qualification may be left with entire safety, and there is very little danger that too great a degree of liberality will be exercised, or that sectional prejudices will be too easily overcome. The evil, if any exists, is of another character, and from another source; it lies not in the existing law, but in the frauds perpetrated upon it; frauds which the wisest legisla- tion cannot entirely prevent, and which would probably be increased, as the motives for their commission were strengthened by extending the term of probation . 4 But it is not my intention to occupy the time of the House in discussing- the principles of the Native American party. I confess, however, that I do not share in the fears of those who apprehend danger to our institu- tions from the increase of our foreign population . Those who entertairx this apprehension mistake, I think, the nature of these institutions, and fail to comprehend fully the spirit of the age in which we live. We have tried,, successfully thus far, the experiment of self-government, founded upon free and universal suffrage. It has been our policy to invite and encourage emigration by extending to the emigrant the same civil and religious privi- leges Avhich we enjoy, and, from every land where man is oppressed by the iron hand of despotism, and human hopes and energies are crushed by usages grown inviolable by time—from the worn-out Principalities of Eu- rope, perhaps even at some future period from the populous Kingdoms of Asia, the tide of emigration will pour in upon our country. The population which we shall thus receive will mingle with our own—the lapse of a few years will remove them and us from this stage of existence, and their chil- dren, like ours, will be native-born Americans. Shall we fear, then, that this stream of emigration may endanger the purity of our political institu- tions? As well might we indulge the apprehension that the thousand rivers,, which, from the snow clad summits of a thousand mountains, are pouring their miglity torrents into every sea, may freshen the waters of the ocean. But I have entered upon this discussion with the view of taking another view of the subject. It has been said, during the progress of this debate, by a gentleman on the other side of the House, that the Native American party IS not, as it professes to be, an independent political organization, but is in reality onl)^ a wing of the Whig party. Tliis charge I utterly deny, and shall attempt to show that, so far from originating or being in any way con- nected with the Whig party, the native faction had its origin in the strong; holds of modern democracy, and has been encouraged and upheld by the- leaders of the Democratic party. They brought it into existence, they par- ticipated in the riots and murders which accompanied its progress, they shared the patronage it dispensed in the hour of its triumph, their party alone reaped its benefits, and it was not until the efforts of patriotic whigsin New York and Philadelphia had'laid it prostrate, that their voices, with few exceptions, were raised in its condemnation. At this late hour, when the battle has been fought and won by whigs, who threw themselves into the breach regardless of personal defeat, and stemmed the tide of native proscrip- tion, shall we be charged with being allies of nativism? No, sir; it was in the inordinate passion for the spoils of office, in the pursuit of which the Democratic party had already inflicted such a countless train of evils upon the country, that the native movement originated. Permit me, sir, to refer to facts, which prove conclusively the connection of the party which calls'itself democratic, with the first movements and rapid growth of Native Americanism. If I am wrong in any of my statements I shall be happy to be corrected. And first, let me ask in what portion of the country it originated ? It was first heard of as a party in the neighbor- hood of the city of Philadelphia—not in the city proper, but in the demo- cratic precincts adjoining. There is a vast political, not to say moral, dif- ference between the whig city of Philadelphia and the democratic districts in the vicinity; and while the former has never been tainted by the native 5 lieresy^ the latter was the place of its birth, and the scene of the frightful out- rages which attended its early progress. It happened that, in one of these democratic precincts adjoining Philadel- phia, an Irish citizen, named Hugh Clark, was, about six years ago, nomi- nated to an office of considerable importance by a democratic convention. This nomination, though made in entire accordance with the usages of the party, gave great dissatisfaction to a portion of the democracy. They could not endure the idea of conferring an office upon a foreigner. In their opinion the adopted citizens should serve their country in another capacity—as voters—not as officeholders. According to their idea of de- mocracy, the duty of a foreigner was to vote the democratic ticket; but when it was suggested that one of these men should be rewarded for his services to the cause by an office, their sensibilities were shocked, and their patriot- ism took the alarm. Accordingly, when the day of election arrived, a suf- fficient number of democrats spotted io use, their expressive word—the name of Hugh Clark from the ticket, and while all the other democratic candidates were elected by a large majority, he was defeated by a vote equally decisive; and this, for the ostensible, avowed reason, that he was an Irishman. He was not born on the right side of the water. The election passed, and all was apparently quiet. The event was by many forgotten, but not by the Irishmen of that district. They remembered the injury and insult they had suffered, and they only awaited a favorable opportunity to avenge the wrongs of their brother. An opportunity was soon presented. Three years afterwards another election, similar to that just mentioned, took place, and the democratic Irishmen of that precinct, with Hugh Clark among their number, abandoned their former political associates, and voted for the excellent whig candidate for sheriff, Morton McMichael, and for the whole whig ticket, which by their aid was success- ful by a large majority. On discovering the cause of their defeat the rage of the democratic leaders laiew no bounds. The Irish voters were denounced with a bitterness far exceeding in degree the servility with which they had before been flattered . No terms of reproach were too strong—no opprobrious epithets were too severe, to be heaped upon the heads of the foreign population. It would seem that the democratic leaders had supposed the votes of foreigners to be their own property—that, in their opinion, adopted citizens were bound soul and body in the thraldom of democracy, and that for them to think and act for themselves was a crime deserving the most condign punishment. They seemed to be astounded by the discovery that their Irish fellow-citizens had had the unparalleled audacity to act with the independence of freemen; and when they were actually proved guilty of having voted with the whigs, the en- raged arid disappointed leaders of the democratic party prepared to inflict the punishment which the enormity of the crime demanded. Then it was that the outcry was raised against foreign voters; then began the persecu- tiori of Irishmen in the vicinity of Philadelphia; then were first held those native meetings, called and principally attended by native born democrats, who had lost the emoluments of office by foreign votes. These native meetings were the cause of that excitement, which ended in the riots, the murders, the burning of churches, with which we are too familiar. They never would have been held but for the indignation which the adopted citi- 6 2ens of Kensington and that neighborhood, had aroused in the breasts of democrats, by merely exercising peaceably the right of suffrage and voting^ the whig ticket. And now, sir, to prove conclusively, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that these lamentable and disgraceful scenes had their origin with the leaders of the democratic party, let me state one fact: The same infuriated mob which perpetrated those enormities to which I have alluded, proceeded directly from their horrid work of murder and devastation to the house of this same Hugh Clark, (whose friends had caused a whig triumph at the preceding election,) and literally sacked, disembowelled, and left it in ruins. Was this a whig mob, think you? No, sir; it was a mob of infuriated democrats, wreaking their vengeance on an Irishman who had by his influence aided the whig party. And still, sir, in the face of these facts, there are not wanting those in this House, and elsewhere, who have had the hardihood to assert that the riots of Kensington and the Northern Liberties originated with the whigs. This wicked falsehood has had its day, and has produced in some measure the effect for which it was intended; it has alienated for a time many adopt- ed citizens from the cause which they know to be the cause of the country; but its day is past, and its effects cannot be repeated. I might, if it were necessary, give the names of individual members of the democratic party who were active in originating the native organization in the vicinity of Philadelphia; but I shall forbear to do so, unless it shall be rendered necessary. I will, however, state that I have been informed,, and I believe it to be true, that the only two clergymen in the city of Phila- delphia who were found so far to forget the duties of their sacred calling as^^ to attend Native American meetings, and by their harangues excite to mad- ness the most malignant passions of the human breast, and add new bitter- ness to the unfounded prejudices which already existed against adopted cit- izens, were open and avowed politicians of the democratic stamp! In what portion, let me ask, of the county of Philadelphia have the native disturbances occurred, and where has the native party been strongest? The city proper has been the scene of none of these riots—none of this church- burning—none of this triumph over the ashes of the dwellings of foreigners — ending in a political triumph over the spoils of office . (Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll here interposed and said, that in the very heart of the city a church was burnt in the presence of the mayor.) Mr. Dixon resumed : But the mob which burnt it came from other quar- ters ; nor is the gentleman from Pennsylvania right in saying that thfr church of which he speaks was in the heart of the city. It was situated upon its northern confines, and the mob which broke down like fierce barbarians” upon the whig city of Philadelphia, and destroyed this church of Saint Augustine, was a democratic mob from the democratic precinct of the Northern Liberties ! So much, sir, for the history of Native Americanism in the place of it® birth. The leaders of modern democracy brought it into existence, and nursed its infancy. As it increased in strength, they directed its energies,, and led its infuriated partisans to the excesses of which they were guilty. Let us now trace the history of this party in the city of New York. Was not that city suflaciently democratic in the spring of 1843? The democra- 7 tic candidate for mayor was then elected by the astounding majority of five or six thousand votes ^ and the party seemed safely enthroned in power for an indefinite period. But it happened here, as in the vicinity of Philadel- phia, that some of the most prominent democrats, among whom was the celebrated Job Haskell, took offence at the appointment of a few Irishmen to office. It was claimed by them that foreigners were entitled to hold no office whatever, and to establish this principle, some of the most prominent leaders of Tammany Hall originated the native party . That it was wholly; a democratic movement in its origin in New York, and that Tammany- Hall was the place where it first saw the light, none will attempt to deny. . At the election in the fall of 1843, this party had, in the short space of six months, become so large as to encourage its friends to continue their exer- tions^ and, in the spring of 1844, Native Americanism , in the democratla city of New York, prevailed by a plurality of more than four thousand votes. How was this result effected, without the aid of democratic votes, in a city which had a democratic majority of 6,000 one year before ? A reference ta the election returns of 1843 and 1844, will show to what party the Native^ Americans were indebted for their victory in the latter year. In 1843, the whig vote in the city of New York was 19,817. This, was the whole whig strength in a hard fought contest. Of these, 5,297 adhered to the whig nomination in 1844, when there was confessedly not the slightest prospect of success, leaving about 14,000 whigs, who, knowing^ they could not succeed with their own ticket, voted for James Harper^, or for Mr. Coddington, the democratic candidate. It is well known that great numbers of the whigs of the city of New York voted for the democratio candidates, knowing that there was no possibility of succeeding'with their own. Probably nearly all the adopted citizens of the whig party thus voted^^ hoping thereby to defeat the native ticket. This acccounts for a large portions of the whig loss. Mr. Harper’s vote was 24,510; and, admitting that all the whigs who abandoned their own candidate voted for him , which is admitting all that our democratic friends claim, where, I ask, were the 10,000 votes obtained which were required, in addition to the votes cast by the whigs, ta complete the full number given to Mr. Harper? It is reduced by the elec- tion returns to a mathematical certainty, that no less than 10,000 democrats of New York, with all their pretended love for the foreigner, abandoned their own ticket, when success was certain had they been true to their can- didates. Now, sir, it must be remembered that the whigs who voted for Mr. Harper, the native candidate, had many reasons for so doing, aside from their regard for the principles of the native creed, l^hey despaired of the election of their own candidate. It was natural that they should ba willing to vote in such a manner, as to defeat the democratic candidates in^ whose political principles they had no confidence , against whom they had so long been struggling, and who were personally odious to the great mass of the whig party. But what excuse had the 10,000 democrats who joined in the crusade against naturalized citizens? Their party was flushed with victory, and confident of success. Their candidates were popular, and had their entire confidence. There was, then, every reason why they should adhere to their own ticket, and nothing but the most intense hatred of adopted citizens, and devotion to the narrow, illiberal doctrines of nativ- ism, could have induced this army of 10,000 democrats to abandon theh' 8 party, in the hour of its triumph, and decide the doubtful contest in favor of the native party, and against their own friends. The victory which democratic votes had thus given to the natives in New York, enured, it must not be forgotten, to the benefit of the democratic leaders, with whom nativism originated. Job Haskell, one of its principal movers, was elevated to the high office of a judge, and his associates were rewarded not only by seeing all foreigners excluded from office, but by see- ing themselves appointed. The native party having the entire control of the immense patronage of the city, thought themselves secure in their power; and now, sir, if this native triumph was such in form only, and "was in substance a whig victory, what had the whigs to do but unite with the natives in maintaining their ascendancy? But, instead of such a coalition , such concert of action, between what gentlemen here call the two wings of the same army, you find the whig party, in subsequent elections, refusing all connection with the native faction—and the democra- tic party of the city of New York, now reduced by the defection of great numbers of its members who l^ave united with the natives, to a miserable minority, is only able to preserve its sickly ascendancy by the refusal of the whigs to unite with the native party, though by so doing they might give a finishing blow to the old enemy with whom they have been so long con-