Speech of Congressman Jefferson Davis, December 19, 1845

Speech of Jefferson Davis in the House of Representatives, December 19, 1845, on the Subject of Native Americanism and the Naturalization Laws.

MR. DAVIS, of Missouri (?)¹ was opposed to the reference of these resolutions to a select committee on two grounds: and the first was, that, in his opinion, they deserved at the hands of this House no reference anywhere. They called upon Congress to purify the ballot-box. If the ballot-box was impure in Massachusetts, let her legislature look at home. Massachusetts had no right to inquire into its condition in other States. So far as the modification of laws for regulating elections went, it was no concern of Congress.

And why did Massachusetts ask for an alteration in our naturalization laws-laws which had existed since the formation of the Constitution? When this country had declared that a man was not the natural and perpetual subject of the Government under which he was born, and had maintained and established the right of foreigners to expatriate themselves, it contended, of course, in that very act, for their right of admission here. And, if so, why did the gentlemen from Pennsylvania demand a select committee? Such a request proceeded on the presumption that the Judiciary Committee was wanting either in patriotism, fidelity, or legal learning; neither of which allegations Mr. D. had ever heard advanced in any quarter. And, if that committee was possessed of these qualifications, to that, as the law committee of this House, let the resolutions go. This was a question which deeply interested the people of his district. They, too, wanted a modification of our naturalization laws; but it was that they might be simplified, and that the process of naturalization might be more easily accomplished. So far as his own wishes, therefore, were concerned, he should rather be inclined to ask a select committee on the other side of the question.

Much had been introduced in this discussion which was not referred to in these resolutions. A broad field had been thrown open, but here the ancient maxim, "Medio tutissimus ibis," would not hold. We must either make naturalization easy, or we must withhold it entirely; for if we admitted foreigners, and yet denied them the enjoyment of all political rights among us, we did but create enemies to our Government, and fill our country with discontented men. Let the principles of Native Americanism prevail, and the foreigner would look in vain for happiness and liberty on the American shore. He detested that party, above all others, for its sordid character and its arrogant assumption.

Mr. D. here referred to a speech which had been made by a gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Rockwell) some days since, in which he had maintained that wherever slavery existed there the high moral character and perfectability of man was not to be found. Had the gentleman forgotten that both the Adamses, and Otis, and Gerry, and Hancock, had all sprung from a State which tolerated slavery? Would he deny to these men a high moral character? He had heard it maintained that the way to elevate the character and increase the prosperity of these States was to adopt the policy of excluding foreigners. As a commentary on that doctrine he would refer its advocates to the ancient empire of China, which had for centuries shut out all the world by her great wall and her exclusive laws. And what had been the result? She had been falling back behind all the other nations of the world in commerce and in power, until at last a little British squadron had been able to dictate terms to the most ancient and populous nation on the earth. He stigmatized this doctrine of exclusion as the doctrine of barbarism. Among savage nations a stranger was counted an enemy, and the same word designated both; but as civilization and every humanizing influence advanced and prevailed, the gates of admission were gradually thrown open. Like another celebrated system which had prevailed in this country, this barbarian doctrine of exclusion had been called "the American system." It was no such thing; it was the European system; but even there it was melting away before the dictates of common sense and a more enlightened policy. Even in France, that stronghold of the feudal system, foreigners were now permitted to hold real estate-England alone retained this blot on her national escutcheon. And should we imitate her in that which was her disgrace? Mr. D. here referred to the services of foreigners in our modern revolution; but though he would not affirm that without it we could not have achieved our freedom, still it furnished a strong reason why we should not shut our gates against those who came to us from abroad. Such a doctrine was never heard among the patriots of the Revolution, and never had he been more surprised than when he heard the name of Washington quoted in their support. Washington was born for no age and for no land; he stood out alone in his native grandeur, and was the boast and the property of the world. His correspondence was still extant in which he referred to his native land as an asylum for the oppressed; and in a letter to Mr. Jefferson had expressed his wonder that those who were oppressed in the Old World did not more frequently take refuge in the New. Was this the man whom Native Americans claimed as the bulwark of their exclusive policy? Much had been said about the Declaration of Independence. Did gentlemen forget that among its signers were to be found eight actual foreigners, and nine who were the immediate descendants of foreign parents? Mr. D. here made a reference, not distinctly heard by the reporter, to the adoption of Washington by the Irish as a son of St. Patrick, although he had no Irish blood in his veins. He concluded by expressing his hopes that the resolutions would not be referred to a committee who were professedly inimical to our foreign population.

_______________

¹ This appears as "Missouri" in the record, but it is undoubtedly an error and should be Mississippi.

SOURCES: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 23-5