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

Major-General Benjamin F. Butler to George Coppell, May 11, 1862

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF,                  

New Orleans, May 11, 1862.

GEORGE COPPELL,

Acting as Her Majesty's Consul, New Orleans:

SIR: I have your communication of May 8. With its evasions of facts I have nothing to do. A plain statement of the matter is this:

A number of residents of this city, who were enjoying the protection and advantages of the United States Government in their large trade and property for many years (some of them more than a decade), and now claiming to have been born subjects of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, organized themselves into a military body, known as the "British Guard," and armed, and uniformed, and equipped, patrolled the streets till the fleet of the United States had the city under its guns. This body then, after a discussion in presence of its captain and at least one other officer, at 11 o'clock at night, deliberately voted, in an organized meeting, to send the arms and uniforms of the company to the army of the rebel General Beauregard, which vote was carried into effect by sending to the rebels substantially all the arms, uniforms, and equipments in their armory. This transaction was concealed from me for some days. I then sent for Captain Burrowes and he acknowledged the facts materially as above stated. For this flagrant breach of the laws of nations, of the United States, your Queen's proclamation, and the laws of God, I directed him to order the company to leave the city within twenty-four hours.

To this he objected, saying, among other things, that this would be punishing the innocent with the guilty, as there were some members absent at the time of the vote; that each soldier of the Guard owned his arms and uniform as private property, and it would be hard to compel those to leave the city who still retained their arms and uniforms and did not concur in the vote. I then modified the order, directing those to report to me who still retained their arms and uniforms; all others, having forfeited all rights of neutrality and hospitality, to leave the city within twenty-four hours, or I should have them arrested and sent to Fort Jackson as dangerous and inimical persons. These people thought it of consequence that Beauregard should have sixty more uniforms and rifles. I thought it of the same consequence that he should have sixty more of these faithless men, who may fill them if they choose.

I intended this order to be strictly enforced. I am content for the present to suffer open enemies to remain in the city of their nativity, but law-defying and treacherous alien enemies shall not. I welcome all neutrals and foreigners who have kept aloof from these troubles which have been brought upon the city, and will, to the extent of my power, protect them and their property. They shall have the same hospitable and just treatment they have always received at the hands of the United States Government. They will see, however, for themselves that it is for the interest of all to have the unworthy among them rooted out, because the acts of such bring suspicion upon all. All the facts above set forth can most easily be substantiated, and indeed are so evasively admitted in your note by the very apology made for them. That apology says that these men when they took this action, &c., sent these arms and munitions of war to Beauregard, "did it with no idea of wrong or harm." I do not understand this. Can it be that such men, of age to enroll themselves as a military body, did not know that it is wrong to supply the enemies of the United States with arms? If so, I think they should be absent from the city long enough to learn so much international law; or do you mean to say that, "knowing their social proclivities and the lateness of the hour when the vote was taken," that therefore they were not responsible? There is another difficulty, however, in these people taking any protection under the British flag. The company received a charter or commission, or some form of rebel authorization from the Governor of Louisiana, and one of them whom I have under arrest accompanied him to the rebel camp.

There is still another difficulty, as I am informed and believe, that a majority of them have made declaration of their intentions to become citizens of the United States and of the supposed Confederate States, and have taken the proper and improper oaths of allegiance to effect that purpose.

Thus far you will do me the honor to observe that I have treated your communication as if it emanated from the duly authorized consul of Her Majesty's Government at this port. The respect I feel for that Government leads me to err, if at all, upon the side of recognition of all its claims and those of its officers, but I take leave to call your attention to the fact that you subscribed yourself "Her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul," and that I have received no official information of any right which you may have so to act, except your acts alone, and pardon me if I err in saying that your acts in that behalf, which have come to my knowledge, have not been of such a character as to induce the belief on my part that you do rightfully represent that noble Government.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,

BENJ. F. BUTLER,              

Major-general, Commanding.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Volume 2 (Serial No. 123), p. 126-7

XXXVIIth Congress – First Session

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3.

SENATE. – Mr. Wade presented a joint resolution from the Legislature of Ohio, instructing members of Congress to use their efforts to secure such amendment of the naturalization laws as well grant naturalization to those of foreign birth who serve during the war.

Mr. Wade also introduced a resolution for a national armory in Ohio.  Passed.

Mr. Chandler presented resolutions from the Legislature of Michigan, re-affirming loyalty to the government and hatred of traitors, and asking the government to speedily put down the insurrection; favoring the confiscation of the property of rebels, and asking that as slavery is the cause of the war it be swept from the land.

Mr. Harris presented a petition from citizens of New York, asking that Congress take speedy measures to repeal the present reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Harris also presented resolutions from the Legislature of New York, asking a modification of the law for raising revenue so that any amount may be raised by any State, by any mode of taxation except duties on imports; that each State be allowed to assume the amount of tax and assess for the payment and the collection of the same, according to its own laws and by its own officers.  Referred.

Mr. Pomeroy offered a resolution asking the Secretary of War for all orders relative to the force in the military command of Kansas, and whether the same be commanded by Gen. Lane, and whether any change has been made in the military orders since Gen. Lane left the Senate and took charge of the force, and whether Gen. Hunter’s order already published is in accordance with the orders of the War Dept.  Laid over.

Mr. Chandler offered a resolution that the committee on commerce inquire in the expediency of immediately notifying Great Britain that the reciprocity treaty is not reciprocal, and that it be terminated at the earliest possible moment.  Laid over.

Mr. Simmons, from the committee on patents, reported back the joint resolution appropriating $3,000 for the purchase of cotton seed for general distribution, with an amendment appropriating $1,000 for the purchase of tobacco seed.  Amendment adopted, and the resolution passed.

Mr. Anthony offered a resolution that the [committee] on patents inquire into the expediency of making an appropriation to aid in the experiment of manufacturing flax as a substitute for cotton.  Adopted.

Mr. Johnson moved to take up the bill providing for the construction of a military RR through the States of Kentucky and Tennessee.  Disagreed to.

Mr. Cowan offered a joint resolution relative to the lake and river defences of Pa.  Referred.

After executive session adjourned.

HOUSE. – Mr. Lovejoy offered the following:

Whereas, It has been learned by this House that five Illinois regiments did, on learning the contents of the report of Sec. Cameron, lay down their arms in token of their refusal to fight for the same; therefore

Resolved, That the committee on the conduct of the war inquire into the alleged fact, and report the same to Congress.

Mr. Fouke desiring to discuss the subject, it went over under the rules.

On motion of Mr. Baker, it was resolved that the committee on Post Offices and post roads be requested to inquire into the propriety of establishing, by law, a system for the free receipt and delivery, by postmen, of all mail matter in cities containing upwards of 10,000 inhabitants, in conformity with the admirable and economical Post Office system of the principal cities of Europe.

The House then proceeded to act on the Senate’s amendment to the House bill making appropriation for completing the defences of Washington, which amendment provides that no volunteers or militia in any State shall be mustered into service on any ground or condition and confined within the limits of any State or vicinity; and if any volunteers or militia have thus been mustered into service, they shall be discharged.

Running discussions followed, in which it was maintained on one side that Home Guards were necessary in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, official provision having already been made to that end; and on the other, that no troops had a right to ask for special privileges, but all should be placed on the same footing.  The House finally disagreed to the above Senate amendment by a vote of 55 against 86.

The House then went into committee of the whole on the Treasury note bill.

Mr. Vallandigham made a speech on the subject.

Adjourned.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport Iowa, Tuesday Morning, February 4, 1862, p. 1