Jump to content

Nativism in United States politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjensen (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 14 June 2022 (copy ex Nativism (politics)#United States June 13 2022; see that page history for attribution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Nativism in the United States is opposition to an internal minority on the basis of its supposed “un-American” foundation. According to the historian John Higham, nativism is:

an intense opposition to an internal minority on the grounds of its foreign (i.e., “un-American”) connections. Specific nativist antagonisms may and do, vary widely in response to the changing character of minority irritants and the shifting conditions of the day; but through each separate hostility runs the connecting, energizing force of modern nationalism. While drawing on much broader cultural antipathies and ethnocentric judgments, nativism translates them into zeal to destroy the enemies of a distinctively American way of life.[1]

Early republic

Nativism was a political factor in the 1790s and in the 1830s–1850s. There was little nativism in the colonial era, but for a while Benjamin Franklin was hostile to German Americans in colonial Pennsylvania; he called them "Palatine Boors". However, he reversed himself and became a supporter.[2]

Nativism became a major issue in the late 1790s, when the Federalist Party expressed its strong opposition to the French Revolution by trying to strictly limit immigration, and stretching the time to 14 years for citizenship. At the time of the Quasi-War with the French First Republic in 1798, the Federalists and Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, including the Alien Act, the Naturalization Act and the Sedition Act. The movement was led by Alexander Hamilton, despite his own status as an immigrant from a small Caribbean island. Phillip Magness argues that "Hamilton's political career might legitimately be characterized as a sustained drift into nationalistic xenophobia."[3] Thomas Jefferson and James Madison fought by drafting the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The two laws against aliens were motivated by fears of a growing Irish radical presence in Philadelphia, where they supported Jefferson.[4] However, they were not actually enforced.[5] U.S. President John Adams annoyed his fellow Federalists by making peace with the Republic of France, and splitting his party in 1800. Jefferson was elected president, and reversed most of the hostile legislation.[6]

1830–1860

Guardians of Liberty, an anti-Catholic caricature by the Ku Klux Klan-affiliate Alma White (1943), founder and bishop of the Pillar of Fire Church.

The term "nativism" was first used by 1844: "Thousands were Naturalized expressly to oppose Nativism, and voted the Polk ticket mainly to that end."[7] Nativism gained its name from the "Native American" parties of the 1840s and 1850s. In this context "Native" does not mean Indigenous Americans or American Indians but rather those descended from the inhabitants of the original Thirteen Colonies. It impacted politics in the mid-19th century because of the large inflows of immigrants after 1845 from cultures that were different from the existing American culture. Nativists objected primarily to Irish Roman Catholics because of their loyalty to the Pope and also because of their supposed rejection of republicanism as an American ideal.[8]

Nativist movements included the Know Nothing or "American Party" of the 1850s, the Immigration Restriction League of the 1890s, the anti-Asian movements in the Western states, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the "Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907", by which the government of Imperial Japan stopped emigration to the United States. Labor unions were strong supporters of Chinese exclusion and limits on immigration, because of fears that they would lower wages and make it harder for workers to organize unions.[9]

Nativist outbursts occurred in the Northeast from the 1830s to the 1850s, primarily in response to a surge of Irish Catholic immigration. In 1836, Samuel Morse ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York City on a nativist ticket, receiving 1,496 votes. In New York City, an Order of United Americans was founded as a nativist fraternity, following the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of the preceding spring and summer, in December 1844.[10] The American historian Eric Kaufmann has suggested that American nativism has been explained primarily in psychological and economic terms due to the neglect of a crucial cultural and ethnic dimension. Furthermore, Kauffman claims that American nativism cannot be understood without reference to an American ethnic group which took shape prior to the large-scale immigration of the mid-19th century.[11]

The nativists went public in 1854 when they formed the "American Party", which was especially hostile to the immigration of Irish Catholics, and campaigned for laws to require longer wait time between immigration and naturalization; these laws never passed. It was at this time that the term "nativist" first appeared, as their opponents denounced them as "bigoted nativists". Former U.S. President Millard Fillmore ran on the American Party ticket for the Presidency in 1856. The American Party also included many former Whigs who ignored nativism, and included (in the South) a few Roman Catholics whose families had long lived in North America. Conversely, much of the opposition to Roman Catholics came from Protestant Irish immigrants and German Lutheran immigrants, who were not native at all and can hardly be called "nativists."[12]

This form of American nationalism is often identified with xenophobia and anti-Catholic sentiment. In Charlestown, Massachusetts, a nativist mob attacked and burned down a Roman Catholic convent in 1834 (no one was injured). In the 1840s, small scale riots between Roman Catholics and nativists took place in several American cities. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1844, for example, a series of nativist assaults on Roman Catholic churches and community centers resulted in the loss of lives and the professionalization of the police force. In Louisville, Kentucky, election-day rioters killed at least 22 people in attacks on German and Irish Catholics on 6 August 1855, in what became known as "Bloody Monday."[13]

The new Republican Party kept its nativist element quiet during the 1860s, since immigrants were urgently needed for the Union Army. European immigrants from England, Scotland, and Scandinavia favored the Republicans during the Third Party System (1854–1896), while others were usually Democratic. Hostility toward Asians was very strong from the 1860s to the 1940s. Nativism experienced a revival in the 1890s, led by Protestant Irish immigrants hostile to the immigration of European Catholics, especially the American Protective Association.[14]

Anti-German nativism

From the 1840s to the 1920s, German Americans were often distrusted because of their separatist social structure, their German-language schools, their attachment to their native tongue over English, and their neutrality during World War I.

The Bennett Law caused a political uproar in Wisconsin in 1890, as the state government passed a law that threatened to close down hundreds of German-language elementary schools. Catholic and Lutheran Germans rallied to defeat Governor William D. Hoard. Hoard attacked German American culture and religion:

"We must fight alienism and selfish ecclesiasticism.... The parents, the pastors and the church have entered into a conspiracy to darken the understanding of the children, who are denied by cupidity and bigotry the privilege of even the free schools of the state."[15]

Hoard, a Republican, was defeated by the Democrats. A similar campaign in Illinois regarding the "Edwards Law" led to a Republican defeat there in 1890.[15]

In 1917–1918, a wave of nativist sentiment due to American entry into World War I led to the suppression of German cultural activities in the United States, Canada, and Australia. There was little violence, but many places and streets had their names changed (The city of "Berlin" in Ontario was renamed "Kitchener" after a British hero), churches switched to English for their services, and German Americans were forced to buy war bonds to show their patriotism.[16] In Australia thousands of Germans were put into internment camps.[17]

Anti-Chinese nativism

In the 1870s and 1880s in the Western states, ethnic White immigrants, especially Irish Americans and German Americans, targeted violence against Chinese workers, driving them out of smaller towns. Denis Kearney, an immigrant from Ireland, led a mass movement in San Francisco in the 1870s that incited attacks on the Chinese there and threatened public officials and railroad owners.[18] The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many nativist acts of Congress which attempted to limit the flow of immigrants into the U.S.. The Chinese responded to it by filing false claims of American birth, enabling thousands of them to immigrate to California.[19] The exclusion of the Chinese caused the western railroads to begin importing Mexican railroad workers in greater numbers ("traqueros").[20]

20th century

According to Erika Lee, in 1894 the old stock Yankee upper-class founders of the Immigration Restriction League were, “convinced that Anglo-Saxon traditions, peoples, and culture were being drowned in a flood of racially inferior foreigners from Southern and Eastern Europe.”[21]

In the 1890s–1920s era, nativists and labor unions campaigned for immigration restriction following the waves of workers and families from Southern and Eastern Europe, including the Kingdom of Italy, the Balkans, Poland, Austria-Hungary, and the Russian Empire. A favorite plan was the literacy test to exclude workers who could not read or write their own foreign language. Congress passed literacy tests, but presidents—responding to business needs for workers—vetoed them.[22] Senator Henry Cabot Lodge argued the need for literacy tests, and described its implication on the new immigrants:

It is found, in the first place, that the illiteracy test will bear most heavily upon the Italians, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, and Asiatics, and lightly, or not at all, upon English-speaking emigrants, or Germans, Scandinavians, and French. In other words, the races most affected by the illiteracy test are those whose emigration to this country has begun within the last twenty years and swelled rapidly to enormous proportions, races with which the English speaking people have never hitherto assimilated, and who are most alien to the great body of the people of the United States.[23]

Responding to these demands, opponents of the literacy test called for the establishment of an immigration commission to focus on immigration as a whole. The United States Immigration Commission, also known as the Dillingham Commission, was created and tasked with studying immigration and its effect on the United States. The findings of the commission further influenced immigration policy and upheld the concerns of the nativist movement.[22] There was little migration in or out from Europe during World War I (1914-1918). Nativists in the 1920s focused their attention on Southern and Eastern Europeans due to their Catholic and Jewish religion. They realigned their beliefs behind racial and religious nativism.[24]

Three Klansmen talking to PI reporter Robert Berman in Seattle, Washington (circa 1923). Photograph currently preserved by the Museum of History & Industry.

In the early 1920s, the Second Ku Klux Klan, promoted an explicitly nativist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish stance.[25] The racial concern of the anti-immigration movement was linked to the eugenics movement that was sweeping in the United States during the same period. Led by Madison Grant's book, The Passing of the Great Race nativists grew more concerned with the racial purity of the United States. In his book, Grant argued that the American racial stock was being diluted by the influx of new immigrants from the Mediterranean, Ireland, the Balkans, and the ghettos. The Passing of the Great Race reached wide popularity among Americans and influenced immigration policy in the 1920s.[22]

In the 1920s, a wide national consensus sharply restricted the overall inflow of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. After intense lobbying from the nativist movement, the United States Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921. This bill was the first to place numerical quotas on immigration. It capped the inflow of immigrations to 357,803 for those arriving outside of the western hemisphere.[22] However, this bill was only temporary, as Congress began debating a more permanent bill. The Emergency Quota Act was followed with the Immigration Act of 1924, a more permanent resolution. This law reduced the number of immigrants able to arrive from 357,803, the number established in the Emergency Quota Act, to 164,687.[22] Though this bill did not fully restrict immigration, it considerably curbed the flow of immigration into the United States, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe. During the late 1920s, an average of 270,000 immigrants were allowed to arrive, mainly because of the exemption of Canada and Latin American countries.[24] Fear of low-skilled Southern and Eastern European immigrants flooding the labor market was an issue in the 1920s, the 1930s, and the first decade of the 21st century (focused on immigrants from Mexico and Central America).

An immigration reductionism movement formed in the 1970s and continues to the present day. Prominent members often press for massive, sometimes total, reductions in immigration levels. American nativist sentiment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at undocumented workers, largely Mexican, resulting in the passage of new penalties against illegal immigration in 1996. Most immigration reductionists see illegal immigration, principally from across the United States–Mexico border, as the more pressing concern. Authors such as Samuel Huntington have also seen recent Hispanic immigration as creating a national identity crisis and presenting insurmountable problems for US social institutions.[26]

Noting the large-scale Mexican immigration in the Southwest, the Cold-War diplomat George F. Kennan in 2002 saw "unmistakable evidences of a growing differentiation between the cultures, respectively, of large southern and southwestern regions of this country, on the one hand", and those of "some northern regions". In the former, he warned:

the very culture of the bulk of the population of these regions will tend to be primarily Latin-American in nature rather than what is inherited from earlier American traditions ... Could it really be that there was so little of merit [in America] that it deserves to be recklessly trashed in favor of a polyglot mix-mash?"[27]

David Mayers argues that Kennan represented the "tradition of militant nativism" that resembled or even exceeded the Know Nothings of the 1850s.[28]

21st century

In the years leading up to 2010, many experts on trade liberalization and globalization expected the Great Recession to cause a resurgence in nativism, both in terms of America's trade openness and the mobility of humans into the country.[29] However, in the immediate aftermath there was no major spike in nativist economic policies, even though the economic contraction did trigger some culturally nativist sentiments among the American public.[29]

By late 2014, the "Tea Party movement" had turned its focus away from economic issues, spending, and Obamacare, and towards President Barack Obama's immigration policies, which it saw as a threat to transform American society. It planned to defeat leading Republicans who supported immigration programs, such as Senator John McCain. A typical slogan appeared in the Tea Party Tribune: "Amnesty for Millions, Tyranny for All." The New York Times reported:

What started five years ago as a groundswell of conservatives committed to curtailing the reach of the federal government, cutting the deficit and countering the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party has become a movement largely against immigration overhaul. The politicians, intellectual leaders and activists who consider themselves part of the Tea Party have redirected their energy from fiscal austerity and small government to stopping any changes that would legitimize people who are here illegally, either through granting them citizenship or legal status.[30]

Political scientist and pollster Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs, argues nativism is the root cause of the early 21st century wave of populism.

[T]he jet fuel that’s really feeding the populist firestorm is nativism, the strong belief among an electorally important segment of the population that governments and other institutions should honour and protect the interests of their native-born citizens against the cultural changes being brought about by immigration. This, according to the populists, is about protecting the “Real America” (or “Real Britain” or “Real Poland” or “Real France” or “Real Hungary”) from imported influences that are destroying the values and cultures that have made their countries great.
Importantly, it’s not just the nativists who are saying this is a battle over values and culture. Their strongest opponents believe this too, and they are not prepared to concede the high ground on what constitutes a “real citizen” to the populists. For them, this is a battle about the rule of law, inclusiveness, open borders, and global participation.[31]

In his 2016 bid for the presidency, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was accused of introducing nativist themes via his controversial stances on temporarily banning foreign Muslims from six specific countries entering the United States, and erecting a substantial wall between the US-Mexico border to halt illegal immigration. Journalist John Cassidy wrote in The New Yorker that Trump was transforming the GOP into a populist, nativist party:

Trump has been drawing on a base of alienated white working-class and middle-class voters, seeking to remake the G.O.P. into a more populist, nativist, avowedly protectionist, and semi-isolationist party that is skeptical of immigration, free trade, and military interventionism.[32]

Donald Brand, a professor of political science, argues:

Donald Trump's nativism is a fundamental corruption of the founding principles of the Republican Party. Nativists champion the purported interests of American citizens over those of immigrants, justifying their hostility to immigrants by the use of derogatory stereotypes: Mexicans are rapists; Muslims are terrorists.[33]

Language

Sticker sold in Colorado

American nativists have been promoting English and deprecated the use of German and Spanish in the United States as a former British colony. English Only proponents in the late 20th century proposed an English Language Amendment (ELA), a Constitutional Amendment making English the official language of the United States, but it received limited political support.[34]

  1. ^ John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (1955), p. 2.
  2. ^ John B. Frantz, "Franklin and the Pennsylvania Germans," Pennsylvania History, 65#1 (1998), 21–34 online
  3. ^ Phillip Magness, "Alexander Hamilton as Immigrant: Musical Mythology Meets Federalist Reality", The Independent Review 21#4 (2017) pp 497-508, quote on p 500.
  4. ^ Douglas M. Bradburn, "'True Americans' and 'Hordes of Foreigners': Nationalism, Ethnicity and the Problem of Citizenship in the United States, 1789-1800." Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques (2003): 19-41. online
  5. ^ James Morton Smith,"The Enforcement of the Alien Friends Act of 1798." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 41.1 (1954): 85-104. online
  6. ^ Douglas Bradburn, "A clamor in the public mind: Opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts." William and Mary Quarterly 65.3 (2008): 565-600. online
  7. ^ Oxford English Dictionary (under "Nativism"), citing Whig Almanac 1845 4/2.
  8. ^ Ray A. Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800–1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism (1938)
  9. ^ Tyler Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the politics of the 1850s (1992).
  10. ^ Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800–1860
  11. ^ "Kaufmann, EP, 'American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Anglo-Saxon Ethnogenesis in the "Universal" Nation, 1776–1850,' Journal of American Studies, 33 (1999), 3, pp. 437–57".
  12. ^ Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the politics of the 1850s
  13. ^ Smith, Peter. "Recalling Bloody Monday; Events to mark 1855 anti-immigrant riots in city," The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky. (July 30, 2005); Crews, Clyde: An American Holy Land: A History of the Archdiocese of Louisville (1990).
  14. ^ Donald L. Kinzer, Episode in Anti-Catholicism: The American Protective Association (1964)
  15. ^ a b Quoted on p. 388 of William Foote Whyte, "The Bennett Law Campaign in Wisconsin," Wisconsin Magazine Of History, 10: 4 (1926–1927), p. 388
  16. ^ Frederick C. Luebke, Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and World War I (1974); Terrence G. Wiley, "The Imposition of World War I Era English-Only Policies and the Fate of German in North America," in Barbara Burnaby and Thomas K. Ricento, eds. Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities (1998); Russell A. Kazal, Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity (2004)
  17. ^ Stuart Macintyre, The Oxford History of Australia: vol. 4, The Succeeding Age, 1901–1942 (1993), pp. 153–55; Jurgen Tampke, The Germans in Australia (2007) pp. 120–24.
  18. ^ John Soennichsen (2011). The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. ABC-CLIO. pp. 51–57. ISBN 9780313379475.
  19. ^ Erika Lee, At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943 (2003)
  20. ^ Jeffrey Marcos Garcilazo, `Traqueros': Mexican Railroad Workers in the United States, 1870 to 1930. PhD U. of California, Santa Barbara 1995. 374 pp. DAI 1996 56(8): 3277–78-A. DA9542027 Fulltext: online at ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
  21. ^ Erika Lee, America for Americans a history of xenophobia in the United States (2019) p. 113.
  22. ^ a b c d e Pula, James (Spring 1980). "American Immigration Policy and the Dillingham Commission". Polish American Studies. 37 (1): 5–31. JSTOR 20148034.
  23. ^ Lodge, Henry Cabot. "The Restriction Immigration" (PDF). University of Wisconsin–Madison. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 March 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2011.
  24. ^ a b Higham, John (1963). Strangers in the Land. Atheneum. p. 324.
  25. ^ Baker, Kelly J. Gospel according to the Klan: The KKK's appeal to protestant America, 1915-1930. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2011.
  26. ^ Huntington, Clash of Civilizations (1997)
  27. ^ Bill Kauffman, Free Vermont Archived 2010-10-26 at the Wayback Machine, The American Conservative December 19, 2005.
  28. ^ David Mayers, George Kennan and the Dilemmas of US Foreign Policy (1990) ch 3
  29. ^ a b Judith L. Goldstein; Margaret E. Peters (2 June 2014). "Nativism or Economic Threat: Attitudes Toward Immigrants During the Great Recession". International Interactions. 40 (3): 376–401. doi:10.1080/03050629.2014.899219. S2CID 153855935.
  30. ^ Jeremy W. Peters, "Obama's Immigration Action Reinvigorates Tea Party," New York Times Nov 25, 2014
  31. ^ Darrell Bricker, “Next: Where to Live, What do Buy, and Who Will Lead Canada’s Future,” HarperCollins Publishers, 2020, pp. 166-167
  32. ^ John Cassidy, "Donald Trump Is Transforming the G.O.P. into a Populist, Nativist Party. The New Yorker Feb. 29, 2016
  33. ^ Donald Brand, "How Donald Trump's Nativism Ruined the GOP" Fortune June 21, 2016
  34. ^ Brandon Simpson, The American Language: The Case Against the English-only Movement (2009)