Saturday, August 15, 2015

Immigration in America: Us vs. Them, until they become us.

Listen to Part 1 of this episode as a podcast.

Listen to Part 2 of this episode as a podcast.

The US is a nation of immigrants.  Most countries have populations that have been there since before written history.  By contrast, almost everyone in the US today is either an immigrant or descended from someone who immigrated to the US within the last 400 years.

American Indians are the one exception to this.  I dislike the term "Native Americans" since technically anyone born in America is a "native".  I know "Indian" is not an ideal name since it was mistakenly imposed by Columbus thinking he was in the Indies, but for lack of a better term, I'll use it here.  Most Indians were wiped out primarily through European diseases.  Many more died in wars or through deprivation caused by being forced to live in the least hospitable lands on the continent.  While Indian relations would make a very interesting topic, it is not the one I plan to address today.  So forgive me if I delay this discussion for another day.

The First Immigrants

So where did the first European settlers come to settle in what is today the United States?  You may be forgiven if the first answer that comes to mind is the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock in 1620.  That answer is wrong, despite what we might have learned in school.  The fact that Pilgrims often get the credit is due to the fact that New Englanders were more focused on history than other regions and tended to play up their own first immigrants.

The first British colonists settled in Roanoke Island in 1585.  This was an island just off the coast of what is today North Carolina  The colonists were dependent at first on the local Indians for food, and hoped to trade with them.  But after they attacked and killed a local chief, relations with the locals were impossible and the colony began to starve.  Fortunately for them, explorer Francis Drake stopped by to check on them in 1586 on his way back from attacking some Spanish colonies.  All the colonists hopped on his ship and fled back to England.  A second attempt to establish a Roanoke colony landed in 1587.  But this group of settlers was wiped out, presumably by the Indians.

A permanent settlement would wait another 20 years until the Virginia Company established "Fort James" (later Jamestown) in what is today Virginia in 1607.  The very next year introduced the first "foreigners" to the British inhabitants.  In 1608, German, Polish, and Slavic immigrants arrived among a second group of colonists.  These were all professional artisans with specific skills needed by the colony to produce goods from raw materials.

Records from these early years in Jamestown are sketchy.  So we don't know exactly what happened. But these "foreigners" did have some problems with the British colonists.  Several of the Germans ended up fleeing the colony and going to live with a local Indian tribe rather than continue to live with the British in the colony.  Several other of the non-British workers ended up holding the first labor strike in North America after being refused the right to vote in local 1619 elections.  From the very beginning, people could not get along as a result of language and culture.  British colonists had been in America for all of one year before they started complaining about foreign immigrants and denying them certain rights.

Incidentally, these British colonies were not the first European colonies in what is today the US.  There is some rather sketchy information about Vikings around 1000 AD who settled in Newfoundland (today Canada) moving further south into what is today part of the US, but if any remained, they intermarried with the local Indian populations and lost their distinct identity as Vikings.

Also, in 1564 the Spanish created a colony near the modern Pensacola Florida, which failed.  In 1566, the French settled near Jacksonville Florida in 1566, but were quickly killed by the Spanish.  The first successful colony was the Spanish colony in St. Augustine Florida, established in 1565.  There was also a Spanish outpost, founded around 1598 in what is today New Mexico, which was part of the Spanish push north from their control of what is today Mexico.

Over the course of time, there were numerous attempts to establish additional colonies along North America.  French, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, and other groups all attempted to establish colonies.  But by 1700, the area along the east coast that would become the US (other than Florida) was pretty much under British control.  This did not mean that all the colonists were ethnic English.  Many of the colonists from other countries remained living and working in their colony.  They simply had to pledge loyalty to the King of England (who by the way was German born and did not speak much English himself).  After giving such political pledges, these colonists remained distinct in their use of languages other than English and practicing other traditions from their native lands.

Many immigrants who came to America, especially in the early 1700s were German.  Germany was not a single nation at this time and never had much of a naval presence to create its own colony.  But Germans were happy to settle in British colonies, leaving behind the war and deprivation of their native lands.

Immigration was a double edged sword for the colonies.  On the one side, they needed more people in order to make the colony was established.  Otherwise, it might be wiped out by Indians or taken by another power that would later decide to colonize the area for itself.  But at the same time, colonists wanted to make sure that immigrants were not too different from themselves.  Almost as soon as a colony was established, its people began to enact laws to ensure that only the "right sort" were able to enter the colony.

Most of the early restrictions were not racial or ethnic.  They were religious.  But of course at the time, religion was controlled by various European governments.  So restriction by religion had the same impact as restriction by national origin or ethnicity.

New England Colonial Immigration

In its first decade of existence, the Massachusetts colony found the need to pass a law to make sure that no local towns allowed any immigrant to settle without permission from the central government of the colony:

" It is ordered that no Town or person shall receive any stranger resorting hither with intent to reside ... or entertain any such above three weeks, except such persons shall have allowance under the hands of some one of the counsellors, or two other magistrates . . . upon pain that every Town shall forfeit £100 for every offense." Records of Mass. Bay Colony, i, 196.  

(For anyone interested in reading more, this and most of the following quotes on Colonial Immigration laws comes from a book Colonial immigration laws: a study of the regulation of immigration by the English colonies in America by Emberson Proper (1900)).

Gov. John Wintrop justified the restriction:  "... If we here be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath a right to come into us with-out our consent ... If we are bound to keep off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine or damage, then may we lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtful to us."
A Defence of an order of the Court, 1637.
Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 182.

Most of New England had laws banning Quakers from settling among them.  At that time, Quakers had a habit of being particularly aggressive in their attempts to challenge other religions.  This included barging in on Sunday services and telling parishioners everything they were doing was wrong.  This did not go over well with the Puritans, or most anyone else.  It is a practice that the religion, known today more for its silent prayer, has long ago abandoned.

Similarly, Catholics were barred from the colony, particularly Priests, who under Massachusetts law could be executed if they returned to the colony after being banished once.  This was targeted particularly at Jesuit Priests who were from nearby French Canadian colonies and who engaged in missionary conversions of many Indians.  It was feared that the French Priests would cause the Indians to rise up against the good Protestants of New England.  The Catholic prohibition was also a concern that the ongoing religious wars in Europe would not be continued in the New World.  Making sure everyone was a good Protestant was an attempt to keep things peaceful.

Religion was not the only restriction, however.  Massachusetts law in 1709 provided that "No lame, impotent, or infirm persons, incapable of maintaining themselves, should be received without first giving security that the town in which they settled would not be charged with their support."  Colonial life was difficult.  There was often not enough food to go around and everyone depended on neighbors for group security.  People with disabilities were seen as a problem for the whole community and therefore should stay away.

The result of such laws not only deeply restricted immigration and growth, but had a negative impact on trade as well.  Legal reforms eventually allowed other immigrants, provided they had a certain amount of wealth (had to bring personal property worth at least £50) or have certain skills: (able-bodied husbandmen, marines, hand carpenters, laborers, and indentured servants provided they were "not persons of vicious habits," were permitted without the property requirements.

Still, the result of these laws meant that immigration to Massachusetts and most of New England remained very limited.  Population growth in this region tended to be much slower, but also with the much desired lack of diversity among the population.

Immigration in the Middle Colonies

The Middle Colonies took a quite different approach to immigration but nevertheless maintained restrictions.

New York had originally been settled by the Dutch as "New Netherlands".  These early settlers did not encourage any sort of immigration and remained rather small.  As a result, it was a rather simple task for the English to take control of the entire colony in 1664.  Still, the Dutch settlers were permitted to remain and incorporate themselves into the new English Colony now called New York.

To counter this Dutch Population, the English greatly encouraged (Protestant) immigration in the early 1700s in order to make sure the Dutch culture did not remain dominant.  As enough Englishmen could not be encouraged to make the move, the colony opened up to other European Protestants who wished to immigrate.  The English encouraged about 3000 German Palatines (a southwestern region of what is today Germany) to move to New York.  Not to the City, of course, but to set up their own villages in the interior parts of the State where they could serve as a buffer between the English and the Indians.

Again, there were disputes that arose between the English establishment and the German Immigrants.  The immigrants were not given promised land and were forced to work under slave like conditions to pay back loans for their travel.  Unlike later indentured servants, these debts were not paid off individually, but laid on the whole community of immigrants to repay through labor.  As a result, many German immigrants ended up leaving the colony, and the bad reputation discouraged many more from moving there.

Instead, many moved to Pennsylvania, which ended up being one of the most open colonies for immigration.  Pennsylvania had almost no restrictions on immigration and instead actively courted and encouraged, mostly German Protestants to move to the colony.

William Penn had founded the colony in 1683.  As a Quaker, he was unwelcome in England and most other colonies.  He hoped to make his colony a refuge for other victims of religious persecution.  It was one of the few colonies that did not actively block Catholics (although Protestants were courted much more aggressively).  A small Jewish community thrived in the colony from the time of its founding as well.

At first look, there was little attraction for immigrants.  The only port city was Philadelphia, which was not on the Atlantic Ocean.  Rather, one had to travel up the Delaware River to reach the city.  Beyond Philadelphia, most of the State could not be reached by water, making trade more difficult.  This inability to trade would potentially limit the wealth of the colony and its inhabitants. Still, the promise of religious freedom, cheap land, and political rights made it an attractive destination for many.

Germany was the largest contributor.  At the time, England was ruled by King George I.  George, as well as his son George II, were natives of Hanover Germany and did not even know how to speak English.  So German ties with England were at a historic high at this time.  One advertisement distributed in the Palatine region of Germany read:

"the King offers to them for a habitation the country west of the Allegheny Mountains, usually considered a part of Pennsylvania, but not yet belonging to it. Each family shall have fifty acres of land in fee simple, and for the first ten years the use, without charge, of as much as they shall want, subject only to the stipulation that after that time the yearly rent of one hundred acres shall be two shillings. There is land enough for 100,000 families, and they shall have permission to live there, not as foreigners, but on their engagement, under oath, to be true and obedient to the King, and to have the same rights as his natural-born subjects.” 

Many Palatines moved to Pennsylvania as a result of continuing wars in their home land with Catholic France.  Included in this group were many French Huguenot families who had been forced to leave France because of their religion, and had lived in southern Germany for a generation or two.  Upon finding a receptive land for immigrants, the first immigrants strongly encourage friends and family to make the trip to Pennsylvania.  Immigration continued to grow throughout the early and middle 1700s.

There were, however, local English Pennsylvanians who raised concerns about immigration:

At a meeting of the Governor and Council in 1717, the Governor noted "that great numbers of foreigners from Germany, strangers to our language and constitution were lately imported into the Province and daily dispersed themselves without producing any certificates from whence they came or what they were."  This unrestricted immigration alarmed officials since "by the same method any number of foreigners from any nation whatever, enemies as well as friends might throw themselves upon the present settlers."   Council did not put restrictions on immigration but did order that the masters of vessels who had imported to provide lists of all immigrants and ensure that they took an oath of allegiance to the king of England.

This openness encourages thousands more to arrive in the years that followed.  In 1727 Governor Patrick Gordon warned the Council of his concerns: "A vessel has just arrived with four hundred Palatines on board, and they are soon to be followed by a much greater number. . . . They transport themselves without any leave obtained from the Crown of Great Britain, and settle themselves upon the proprietor's lands without any application to his commissioners or the government. Measures ought to be taken at once for the peace and security of the province which may be endangered by such numbers of strangers daily poured in, who being ignorant of our language and laws, and
settling in a body together, make, as it were, a distinct people from his Majesty's subjects."

English Pennsylvanians shared this alarm at having people of a different language, culture, and traditions from living among them:

"why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they 
can acquire our complexion?"

Benjamin Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries &c., 1755.

Amazingly, Franklin continues his article by spouting even more racist rants:

"Which leads me to add one remark: That the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion ; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind." Ibid.

I find it startling that Franklin does not count most Germans as "white people" (or Swedes for that matter).  I guess it just goes to show how the border lines on racism have changed over time.

Many of the immigrants were poor, too poor to pay for their own passage.  As a result, they often had to serve as indentured servants for 3-7 years to pay for their passage.  While many see indentured servitude as better than slavery since it was voluntary and only for a short period of time, we should not overlook the cruelties that resulted from the system.  Many died on the passage over.  Once arrived, they were auctioned off like property to whomever had the money and the need.  Families were separated by this.  Many were literally worked to death in swamps, mines, and other inhospitable environments as the owner attempted to get his money's worth before the end of the indenture.  There is also evidence that some indentured servants did not come voluntarily.  Some were brought aboard ships by fraud and some outright kidnapped by ship captains who profited from their sale in the new world.

There also came an influx if Irish immigrants around this same time. Irish immigrants from the colonial period seemed to have integrated well.  They already spoke English.  Most of the Irish immigrants from this time were Protestant.  They tended to be "Scotch-Irish".  These were Protestants from Scotland, brought to Northern Ireland by Oliver Cromwell in the 1600's to displace Catholics. Many of their descendants grew weary of the limited opportunities and continued religious fighting in Ireland and sought a new life in Pennsylvania and other colonies.

 In 1729, there was enough concern over the immigration that the Colony enacted a tax in immigrants.  The exact amount is in question, but it was enough that several ships took their immigrants over to New Jersey or the Carolinas to avoid the tax.  The tax was repealed after only a few months, but even liberal Pennsylvania was moved over its concern for immigration.

Pennsylvania remained a popular source of immigration throughout the colonial period.  The result of this immigration meant that despite its late start and unattractive location on the interior of the coast, Pennsylvania grew to be the second largest colony by the end of the colonial period. This large influx of Germans also meant a very large non-English speaking society right in the middle of the English Colonies.  These, immigrants, soon called "Pennsylvania Dutch" (Dutch in this case being a bastardization of the word Germans call themselves: " Deutsche".  As a general matter, this group was pretty unobjectionable.  They were pacifists, remained fairly uncontroversial in politics, paid their taxes and generally did not try to convert outsiders to their religion.  Many of these communities remained German speaking until WWI.  A few (mostly Amish) continue to speak a variant of German as their first language to this day.

Immigration in Southern Colonies

Maryland was similarly tolerant of immigrants, although it never advertised as aggressively as its northern neighbor Pennsylvania.  Still, many "Pennsylvania Dutch" began moving from Western Pennsylvania into lands available in Western Maryland over the mid to late 1700s.  Many of these German speaking Palantines were born in Pennsylvania, meaning they were not technically foreign immigrants.  But they did continue to use the German language and did not easily assimilate into the English speaking culture.

Farther south, the colonies again adopted many of the immigration restrictions of New England.  Virginia barred the immigration of Catholics and Quakers.  But many immigrants allowed to enter were not the best sort.  England shipped many felons to the colony, including a large number of Irish forced to serve as slaves.  Of course, African slaves arrived early on as well.  I'm trying to avoid getting side tracked into a discussion of slavery here, but will cover that in another post.  I'll only point out here that slavery discouraged many poor free whites from settling in Virginia because of the lack of jobs.  Rich whites who had slaves did not need to hire others for much of the menial labor that needed to be done.

Many of the poor free people who did immigrate were forced to settle further inland, much like the Germans of Pennsylvania and Maryland, to serve as a buffer between the Indians and the richer whites on the coast.  Many of these were Scotch-Irish.  But the wealthy were not happy about these poorer sorts immigrating.  One Virginian commented  ''that the people sent to inhabit in Virginia are most of them the scum and off-scouring oi the nation, vagrants or condemned persons, or such others as by the looseness and viciousness of their lives have disabled themselves to subsist any longer in England.'' 

Because Virginia was very interested in pushing out its western boundaries as far as possible, it needed a great influx of people to settle that land for the colony.  In 1705, it offered greater inducements to immigrants

(a) Every person, male or female, ''imported" and coming into the colony free had the right to 50 acres of land.
(b) Every Christian servant, on becoming free, had the right to 50 acres.
(c) Every person "importing" a wife or children under age had a right to 50 acres for the wife and each child.
(d) A charge of 5s. for every 50 acres was the only fee imposed.

Despite this desire for immigrants, Virginia passed laws banning the importation of convicts, as well as Catholics.  Servants other than those from England or Wales were taxed on importation.  These inducements encouraged heavy immigration.  But the immigrants did not integrate at first.  The best lands along the coast were settled by wealthy land owners from aristocratic families.  Inland were Englishmen of less wealthy families.  Poorer immigrants who were not slaves or servants to the wealthy families settled in groups well inland and in relatively wild and mountainous areas.

The Carolinas had policies similar to Virginia, settling wealthy planters and slaves and servants along the coast, and immigrants from other countries further inland.  Again, no Catholics were permitted.  Most of the immigrants were German and Swiss Palatines, as well as a large influx of French Huguenots (French Protestants kicked out of northern France by the Catholic King),

So even while the colonies had been desperately trying to increase their numbers, they remained very picky about who they would allow to immigrate. They did permit immigrants from other countries with their own languages and cultures, but generally drew the line on requiring Protestants, in order to avoid the ongoing wars in Europe that had pitted Catholics and Protestants in continual battle for centuries.

US Immigration

Once the US became an independent nation and established its Constitution, the States handed over all authority for immigration to the Federal Government.  Almost right away, fear of the "wrong sort" of immigrants showed up in legislation.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were passed primarily out of a fear of French Catholics fleeing the French Revolution and spreading their wild revolutionary ideas to America.  The Alien Act raised the amount of time an immigrant had to live in the US to vote from five years to fourteen.  It also authorized the President to deport any alien considered  "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".  These laws were largely seen as an attempt by the Federalists to prevent immigration that tended to benefit he opposition party, the Democratic-Republicans, headed by Thomas Jefferson. If that was the intent, these laws backfired and resulted in the election of more Democratic-Republicans who repealed the Alien Act in 1802.

But the Alien Act aside, the Federal Government simply did not concern itself with immigration during the first few decades of the Republic.  It did not even both to track who was immigrating.  With land and other incentives now gone, and with Napoleonic wars making transatlantic trade difficult, immigrants from Europe (or anywhere else) simply were not coming to America in very large numbers.

Catholic Immigration and the Reaction

After few decades of low immigration, however, the trends began to change.  Between 1820 and 1870, the total number of immigrants to the US exceeded the entire US population in 1810.  This was a period of massive immigration, most of which took place in the 1840's and 1850's.  Roughly 1/3 of these immigrants were Irish.  Another 1/3 were Germans.  But unlike earlier immigrants, most of these new Immigrants were Catholics.  This caused great concern among the many native Protestants about how American might be changed as a society.

Irish immigration was primarily the result of the Potato Famine in their home country.  Potatoes had become a staple crop in Ireland.  When a blight killed off almost all of the crop, and England refused to send in any relief supplies to feed the starving mass of poor people, millions began to starve, many dying from starvation.  To avoid this fate about 1.5 million to 2 million Irish came to America.  Large coastal cities such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, once hostile to Catholics, were now willing to tolerate the immigrants.

During this same period, a new German immigration grew as well.  More than 2 million Germans immigrated to America to escape continuing wars in Europe.  Like the Irish, most of the Germans in this wave were Catholic.  Most of these immigrants settled in the mid-west.

Many Mexican Catholics also became Americans during this period.  But not because they crossed the US border.  The border crossed them.  The US acquired a huge part of Mexico, between what is today Texas and California, bringing a great many Spanish speaking Catholics into the United States.

Americans reacted to this wave of immigration with some alarm.  A new political party formed called the "American Party" based on being anti-Catholic and anti-Immigrant.  The party was rather secret about its membership.  A party member if asked about the Party was supposed to respond by saying "I know nothing".  As a result, the Party was nicknamed the "Know Nothing" Party.

Many of the anti-immigrant writings of the time sound very similar to the arguments made today: Lyman Beecher was a famous Massachusetts minister, the father of the famous Abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher and author of Uncle Tom's Cabin Harriet Beecher Stowe.  He wrote the following in 1835:

"In the first place, while the language of indiscriminate discourtesy towards immigrants, calculated to wound their feelings, and cast odium on respectable and industrious foreigners, is carefully to be avoided ; an immediate and energetic supervision of our government is demanded to check the influx of immigrant paupers, thrown upon our shores by the governments of Europe, corrupting our morals, quadrupling our taxation, and endangering the peace of our cities, and of our nation. 

It is equally plain, also, that while we admit the population of Europe to a participation in the blessings of our institutions and ample territory, it is both our right and duty so to regulate the influx and the conditions of naturalization, that the increase shall not outrun the possibility of intellectual and moral culture, and the unregulated action of the European population bring down destruction on ourselves and them."

A plea for the West, Lyman Beecher (1835).

Beecher's book also focused on the dangers of Catholics in particular since they were essentially stooges of the Pope and clergy back in Europe, who would tell them how to vote and would destroy democracy in America.  His fear was that Catholic immigrants would dominate western States which did not yet have the good Protestant built infrastructure to guide new immigrants in the American way of life.  Therefore, immigration to these areas should be greatly limited until Protestant Americans could develop the government and institutions necessary to move Catholic immigrants into a more Protestant way of life.

Others shared a view that Catholic immigration was part of a larger conspiracy by the Church to take control of the US.  The immigrants themselves were seen largely as dupes, unaware of the larger plot, but nevertheless a danger.

"I readily concede that there has been, and are now, many true patriots among this sect [Catholocism], many estimable men of sound political views, sincere in supporting the democratic institutions of the country ; but making the most ample allowance, they are but exceptions to the rule. The sect, as a sect, is still justly chargeable with the tendency of its acknowledged principles. If a Roman Catholic in the United States is a Democratic Republican, it is so in spite of, and in opposition to, the system of his church, and not in accordance with it. To the truth of this fact, the arguments of Schlegel, a Catholic, and the profoundest investigator of the subject in the present age, are unanswerably conclusive. From their principles of passive obedience, and the denial of the right of private judgment alone, Roman Catholics, as a sect, must be ignorant and willing slaves to the schemes of any despotic ecclesiastic that a foreign povjer may see fit to send to this country to rule over them. The secret plans, the real designs of the Jesuits may be confined to few bosoms, it is by no means necessary that the mass of the sect should have any knowledge of the plot for from the nature of their system they may be blind instruments of the few."

Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States by Samuel Morse (1841).

There were a number of anti-Catholic riots in various cities during this period.  Immigrants were beaten or lynched.  Catholic Churches were burned. One of the more famous riots was the burning of the Ursuline Convent near Boston in 1834.  This riot was inspired by several sermons by Rev. Lyman Beecher, the author quoted above.  Of course, Beecher did not participate in the riot and condemned it after the fact. Jobs and neighborhoods also remained highly segregated.

The anti-immigrant movement and violence began to subside the 1850's.  National issues turned more toward slavery and abolition and away from immigration.  Although immigration continued to increase in the 1850's most Americans realized after living with these new Catholic immigrants for several decades was not going to destroy the country.  Anti-immigrant sentiment and violence remained, but not at the levels of the 1830's and 1840's.

Anti-Catholic sentiment, however, continued in legislation for decades to come.  Congress proposed a Constitutional Amendment: "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations"

The "Blaine Amendment" named for Con. James Blaine who proposed it, failed to reach the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate.  However, a great many States added similar amendments to their State Constitutions, many of which remain to this day.

One may recognize the first sentence as being taken from the First Amendment.  Why repeat that right?  Because at the time, the Courts had only applied the First Amendment to the Federal Government.  The Courts did not decide those restrictions applied to the States until the early 20th Century.  States at this time were free to have whatever religious laws they liked..

While couched in neutral terms, the Amendment in the context of its time was clearly aimed at the Catholic Church. During this time, Catholics were upset at the Protestant religious instruction in public schools and wished to create Catholic schools that would receive State funding under the same terms as the "public schools" which taught Protestant religious practices.  When the US was overwhelmingly Protestant, teaching generic Protestant religious ideas in school was not controversial.  But as Catholics became a larger part of the population and objected, the need to extend the Separation of Church and State to the schools became the popular solution to end or at least limit the controversy.

While this wave of immigration brought changes, Americans grew to accept them over time.  There was violence and resistance, but it was during this period that the US began to think of high immigration as the norm and that the idea of a melting pot of immigrants making American a larger and more powerful nation took hold.

Industrial Revolution Immigration

The Civil War and the economic slow down of Reconstruction greatly reduced immigration for a time.  But when the Industrial Revolution began to demand more laborers, immigration filled that need.  Another wave of Irish Immigration began in the 1870s and 1880s.  Since these new immigrants were not terribly different from those who had arrived a generation earlier, they were not met with quite as much hostility.  Still Irish immigrants tended to live in segregated areas and had to work in some of the worst jobs.

The larger numbers of immigrants from northern Europe and Protestant countries continued as well, but with little controversy.  New immigrant groups began to appear in large numbers, including Eastern Europeans and Russians, many of whom were Jews.  Also Italian Catholics began in immigrate in large numbers. Most of these new immigrants settled in large northern cities, finding work in the many factories and new industries that needed labor.

By this time, most Americans had gotten used to the idea that the US was a nation of immigrants.  But there remained hostility.  A newly reformed Ku Klux Klan developed with a major focus on opposing immigration, especially Jewish and Catholic immigrants.  This new KKK became rather popular, with over five million members.  It elected many politicians, judges, and other government officials that made life difficult for the new immigrants.  Aside from advocating racial segregation (considered legal and widely practiced as the time) the KKK was a strong proponent of greater restrictions on immigration, gained a powerful dislike of Catholics and Jews (who again were mostly immigrants), and supported a growing temperance movement - which tended to find its highest support among Protestants, and greatest opposition among Catholics.

Also now that the US had taken control of the West coast, a concern over the rise of Chinese Immigrants grew.  The first major Chinese immigration took place in the 1850's with the California Gold Rush.  Restrictions at the time did not allow Chinese immigrants to bring their wives or children.  So many returned after a time, or died in the US without children, thus limiting any growth of influence.  In 1882 the US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which even more severely restricted any Chinese or other Asian immigration.

In the 1920's Congress passed a series of laws that greatly reduced the total number of immigrants that could enter the country each year.  Even more significantly, there were quotas put on the number of immigrants that could enter from any country, based largely on what percentage of Americans came from that country originally.  As such, it was very easy for someone from England, Germany, or Ireland, to immigrate.  But immigrants from countries without a long history of movement to the US found it nearly impossible.

These new laws led to a severe drop in immigration.  During the first decade of the 20th Century, over 8 million immigrants came to the US.  That number began to drop precipitously in each following decade so that less than a million came in the 1930's.  The drop in the 1930's was in part due to the Great Depression, but it was a trend was already dropping, only about 4 million arriving int he 1920's.

Post WWII Immigration

These new laws, combined with the Great Depression and WWII again created a period of reduced immigration to America.  In the post-war era, demand for immigration remained, but the national quotas remained in place until 1965.  As a result, illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, grew significantly.  By this time, the argument was focused less on blatantly racist arguments and more on the economic ones.  Mexican workers were pushing down wages by competing for jobs with American born workers.

In 1954 President Eisenhower appointed General Joseph Swing to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Shortly thereafter, the shockingly named “Operation Wetback” was launched. Border Patrol agents for the first time began catching large numbers of illegal aliens were and sending them back to Mexico. The efforts were largely successful, with illegal immigration dropping 95% by the end of the 1950s.

The system, however, was in desperate need of reform.  In 1965, Congress abolished the national quotas and greatly increased the overall number of immigrants who could enter each year.  Immigrant applicants were given priority based on the following priority list:

1. Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.
2. Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens.
3. Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability.
4. Married children of U.S. citizens.
5. Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twenty-one.
6. Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply.
7. Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East.
8. Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else.

Over time, this led to a greater increase in Asian and Latin American Immigrants, but still not nearly enough to meet demand, particularly for Latin American Applicants.  Levels of illegal immigration continued to grow.

A few tweaks were made in the 1970's and early 80's to the system, but the next major change came with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.  This law, signed by President Reagan, gave amnesty to virtually all of the millions of illegal aliens residing in the US.  But it also for the first time made it a crime for an American to hire an illegal alien.  Up until then, only the government was responsible for tracking the immigration status of those entering the US.  If caught, they could be deported, but there had been no obligation for employers to confirm the immigration status of employees.  Under the new law, failure to do so could subject the American employer to legal liability for hiring an illegal alien.

Thoughts on Current Immigration Controversy

Today immigration remains a divisive issue.  Despite the great restrictions on illegal immigrants, many people, particularly from Latin America, enter the country illegally in search of a better life. With the restrictions on employers, most work in an underground cash economy, with the related danger and instability.

Opponents of immigration generally do not oppose all immigration.  It is generally couched in terms of legal vs. illegal immigration.  The government must be able to regulate the flow of immigration.  But the reasons to have immigration laws at all are the same arguments that have been made historically.  Benjamin Franklin's fears that German speaking immigrants might cause Pennsylvania to lose its Anglican character are similar to modern fears levied against today's large numbers of Spanish speaking immigrants.  Lyman Beecher's fears that immigrants would increase taxes for social services for the poor, ill educated, and morally corrupt immigrants are heard in anti-immigrant arguments today as well.  Fears of Catholics fundamentally changing the American character are today levied against Muslim immigrants.

The truth, of course, is that immigrants do change the nature of our society. The US is very different today than it was 200 or 300 years ago.  The Puritans of Boston once barred Catholic Immigrants and rioted against the Irish.  Today, there are more people of Irish Catholic descent living in the greater Boston area than live in all of Ireland.  Much of modern American cuisine, arts, literature, fashion, religion, etc. has been greatly impacted by repeated waves of immigration.

With each group that arrived, there was some apprehension, resistance, and even violence.  With every new wave, opponents of immigration said, this time it is different.  This time the immigrants would be a negative rather than a positive.  Sometimes immigration can overwhelm an area.  The American Indians probably feel this way.  Mexico once welcomed American immigrants into Texas and ended up losing part of its nation as a result. Such is an unlikely result in the US since the immigrants would have to come from a more powerful country.  In today's world, that simply does not exist.

Much of societal change is also due to changes in the economy, science, technology, etc.  Immigrants, contributed to those advances as well.  The rate of change in the US is much different than if one compares the same time period in a large country that has not seen a great deal of immigration, like say India.  Some change, is inevitable in all countries, but immigration accelerates it.  Some people fear that change.  Others embrace it.

There is little demand today for immigrant labor as there was when we were expanding the country across the continent or feeding the demand of the Industrial Revolution.  Further, because the US has established a social welfare system that attempts to create a minimum standard of living, there is a greater fear that poor uneducated immigrants will create more cost to those already here than they will add.  As a result, the immigration rate as a percentage of the population is much lower today than it was a century ago, or two centuries ago.

Perhaps it is true that the rate of growth over the last two centuries could not continue.  But how that change will affect the growth of American wealth, power, and influence remains to be seen.

Listen to Part 1 of this episode as a podcast.

Listen to Part 2 of this episode as a podcast.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

George Washington, Indispensable indeed


Listen to a Podcast of this Episode.

When one thinks of famous American historical figures, George Washington is probably one of the first that comes to mind.  There are innumerable cities and counties named after him, not to mention the nation's capital and one of its States.  He shows up on our money, has a place on Mount Rushmore, as well as a giant monument in DC. He is known as the "father of our country" and praised as being "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen."

Given that the American Revolution and the founding of the Republic were mass movements involving many people, does Washington really deserve to stand out for the special recognition that he gets?  I argue yes, his deeds really do live up to all the hype.

Washington's Weaknesses

First though, I'd like to point out what George Washington was not.
  • He was not a particularly good orator.  He had a reputation for remaining silent in Congress or at other political events. 
  • He was not a particularly good battlefield tactician.  He lost almost all of the battles in which he fought.  His battle plans were often unrealistic and impossibly complicated,  His subordinates often had to talk him out of crazy schemes of attack that almost certainly would have been suicide. 
  • He certainly was not a man of the people.  He remained aloof from most of his own officers and soldiers, as well as political colleagues.  He saw no problem having living conditions much better than his soldiers in the field.  
  • He was not a strong political leader.  President Washington typically ceded to Congress in setting policy.  What did come out of his Administration was the work of his talented Cabinet members.  
Washington's Assets

Despite these limitations, however, George Washington was an amazing man.  His personal bravery in battle was legendary.  Like many great officers of the time, Washington seemed to be able to ignore gunfire all around him, standing unconcerned in the midst of a firefight.  At the time, most weapons were terribly inaccurate, so being hit was largely a matter of chance anyway.  But Washington had no compunctions about riding into a firefight to rally his men, or trying to prevent a retreat.

Washington also had great personal integrity.  After losing a number of important battles in 1776 and 1777, many in the Army, in Congress, and in the public generally, thought Washington incompetent and in need of replacement.  The Continental Army had several professional officers, including Gen. Charles Lee, who had served in the British Army before the war.  There was a serious movement to replace Washington, who refused to defend his actions in the press or even in most conversations. Typically, he would not second guess or publicly criticize the mistakes of his subordinates, even those gunning for his job.  He let his actions speak for him, and was willing to accept any Congressional decision to replace him.

This is not to say he was never critical.  Washington gave his would-be replacement Charles Lee a prominent command at the Battle of Monmouth in 1778.  A great victory might have convinced Congress to give Lee overall command.   But Lee almost immediately began a retreat after seeing the enemy.  When Washington rode onto the field and saw the retreat, he lost his temper and berated Lee for his cowardice and incompetence (something he almost never did).  Washington took direct control of the soldiers and led a successful attack.

Washington was a strict disciplinarian.  He was not afraid to court marshal officers who shirked their duty or to have soldiers flogged or even executed for bad behavior or desertion. He demanded his army respect civilian rights and property and that they treat prisoners with respect and basic humanity.  Violations of these rules were subject to strict punishments.

Washington's many good qualities made the nearly impossible victory of the Revolution possible.  It is hard to imagine many other leaders acting as he did.  After military success, many expected the Revolution to go the way of many earlier wars where the army finally tires of incompetent politicians and overthrows the government.  That is how Oliver Cromwell came to control Britain over a century earlier.  It is also how Caesar famously took control of Rome.  Washington looked at these historic examples and saw the need to make clear that Congress remained the supreme leader.  Washington's army would always defer to Congress, despite its great incompetence in many areas.

There are many wonderful biographies of George Washington that go into this in far more detail.  For this post, I would like to focus on just two events that could have taken history in a far different direction without the leadership of General Washington.

Washington's Crossing of the Delaware

The first event is generally well known: Washington's famous crossing of the Delaware.  In August 1776, The British invaded New York City.  They easily chased Washington's army through New Jersey and into Pennsylvania.  Washington attempted to stop the British advance by destroying every boat he could find along the Delaware river.  The British settled into winter quarters, convincing most citizens of New York and New Jersey to declare loyalty to the King in exchange for a pardon for their previous treason.  Many quickly agreed.  It seemed clear that a spring campaign would allow the British to move into Philadelphia (where Congress was seated) and take control.  Many people thought this insurrection was pretty much over, and mostly wanted to avoid being hanged for treason at this point.

Even most of Washington's army was ready to go home.  They had not just been beaten, but terribly routed in the battle of New York.  The British humiliated the Americans by blowing hunting calls on their bugles.  The implication being that it was not a real battle.  It was a fox hunt, and the Americans were the foxes.  Most of the terms of enlistment for his army ended on January 1, only a week away.  Since the War seemed clearly lost, there seemed little chance that many would reenlist.  In short, The Continental soldiers would all become civilians again and Washington would be left with nothing.

It was in this desperate context that Washington's officers finally agreed to one of his many crazy schemes to attack the enemy.  The Continental Army would attempt to cross the Delaware River, filled with dangerous ice flows, at night.  This would be a coordinated crossing from three different locations, after which the starving and barefoot soldiers would march through the snowy night to surprise the Hessian soldiers at Trenton, somehow synchronizing this three pronged night attack with little, if any, communication between the different prongs.  The crossing would take place on the evening of December 25, Christmas Day, with the attack scheduled for the following morning.

Like most of Washington's hopelessly complex and demanding strategies, this one fell apart almost from the beginning.  Terrible weather forced two of the three crossings to be called off.  Only the one directly under Washington's supervision succeeded.  Even that one took hours longer than planned. It was already 4:00 AM by the time the army was across the river and could even begin the nine mile march to Trenton.  A surprise night attack would now be impossible.  In addition, powder was getting wet from the storm.  It was unclear if their guns would even work when they arrived for battle.

Washington received word that the two other crossings had failed, meaning he only had a portion of his planned force.  Still, Washington pressed on.  The password selected for the night was "victory or death."  This was quite literal in the sense that if this attack failed, it would be the end of the Continental Army.  I think Washington would have preferred to die in the field rather than see that happen.

Things continued to get worse.  The army struggled to travel the necessary distance.  Two soldiers died from exposure as a result of the difficult march.  Even worse, just before reaching the enemy garrison, the army encountered a group of 50 local patriot militia who had just conducted a raid on the enemy post.  Washington was devastated.  Now the enemy would be on alert and the critical factor of surprise was certainly lost.  Still Washington had no choice but to continue.

It turned out that several bad tidings ended up cancelling each other out.  The delayed start allowed local Tory spies to alert the enemy to the attack.  However, when the militia raid struck and then fled, the Hessians believed that was the attack about which they had been warned and let down their guard. They had been receiving such warnings for weeks.  Given the terrible weather, they saw little chance of any serious attack coming.As a result, Washington was able to carry out the raid as a surprise and capture over 1000 prisoners.

Many leaders would have considered the raid a great success and returned home  But Washington decided to roll the dice again.  After bringing his army and prisoners back to Pennsylvania, Washington crossed the Delaware into NJ a second time to meet a force of 8000 British Regulars led by Gen. Cornwallis to counter the American raid.

Remember, most of Washington's Army had their enlistment's expire at the end of the year.  This second attack began on January 1.  Washington first offered the men a $10 bonus to stay with the army for just one more month.  Since monthly pay as $6 per month, this was not an insignificant amount.  But not a single man stepped forward to continue.  No amount of money was worth the misery and suffering of continuing this winter campaign without the necessary food or clothing.  Then Washington, never much of a speaker, made an impassioned plea to the men.   "My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than could be reasonably expected; but your country is at stake, your wives, your houses and all that you hold dear. You have worn yourselves out with fatigues and hardships, but we know not how to spare you. If you will consent to stay only one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty and to your country which you probably never can do under any other circumstances."  At first there was a pause, but slowly the bulk of his army agreed to continue for another month.

Washington and his army determined that they would meet the advancing British force at Trenton and set up defensive lines.  After the first day of skirmishing, however, it became clear, however that the large and well prepared British force would be able to flank the American lines and cut off any possible retreat back to the Delaware River.  The British set up camp that evening within sight of the Continental Army on the other side of a small creek.  Washington decided a direct battle could be disastrous, so he changed plans.  Washington left a few dozen men in camp to keep fires stoked and make as much noise as possible.  While the British army heard what they thought was the entire Continental Army in camp, Washington took his men on a back trail to Princeton where he attacked a British reserve force of about 1200 men, killing about 200 and taking another 300 prisoner.  Perhaps more importantly, the Continental Army was able to capture the British supply wagons, providing his men with a great many needed supplies.  Washington then pulled his Army up to North NJ to await the next British movement.

By this time, the British saw the futility of chasing the Americans around NJ.  They never wanted a winter campaign at all.  The Commanding General Howe ordered Cornwallis to pull back all British troops to Northern NJ near New York City where they stayed in camp for the winter.

These actions were relatively minor victories but were absolutely critical to keeping the American cause alive.  It proved that the Continental Army could defeat the British. Not any leader would have made such a daring attack, especially when the plans seemed to fall apart during the march on the enemy.  Not any commander would have dared to face the British a second time or had the good sense to retreat and then attack the reserve force when a frontal assault likely would have proved fatal.  There was unquestionably a great amount of luck in pulling off the whole campaign, but a good commander knows when to take such chances.  Truly, Washington was indispensable to the success of this critical campaign.

Newburgh Address

The second incident that made Washington indispensable to the success of the Revolution is less well known.  Two years after the battle of Yorktown, in 1783, Britain and the US were still trying to work out a treaty that would end the war.  British troops still occupied New York City, but were making no attempts at offensive actions.  Washington's Continental Army camped a few miles away in Newburgh, NY just in case the British attempted anything.  For the most part, camp life was quiet, settled, and routine.  Everyone realized the War was coming to an end.

The Continental Army was not in a celebratory mood, however.  The Confederation Congress, which did not have the power to tax, could not raise any money to pay the soldiers.  Soldiers were ill clad, ill fed, and unpaid.  Even worse, they had been promised generous pensions or other bonuses when Congress desperately needed them to remain with the Army.  Now that it came time to pay and the army was not needed as badly, Congress looked as if it would break all of its promises to the soldiers.

Officers had sent multiple petitions to Congress begging that it keep its promises.  But these fell on deaf ears.  While soldiers suffered from deprivation in the field, civilians were beginning to thrive in the peacetime economy.  Those who had sacrificed for their country were justifiably upset at their treatment.

On March 10, 1783 an anonymous letter circulated through the Army calling for a meeting to demand action.  The topic was to discuss having the Army march on Philadelphia and demand their promised pay and benefits, at gun point if necessary.  There was also talk of replacing the incompetent Congress with a military leader, preferably Washington, to take charge of the country, much like General Oliver Cromwell had kicked out Parliament and become Lord Protector of England a century earlier after the English Civil War.

Washington put out an announcement objecting to an anonymous meeting and instead allowed a meeting of officers to be scheduled on March 15.  No one expected Washington to participate in this meeting where essentially treason against Congress would presumably be discussed.  But Washington walked in unexpectedly and asked to address the officers.  He gave a short speech recommending continued patience.  He said they should oppose anyone "who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood."  Despite their long loyalty to Gen. Washington, these officers seemed largely unmoved and unwilling to change their views.

Washington then produced a letter from a member of Congress to read to the officers. He looked at the letter as if he had trouble reading it, and fumbled with it for some time without speaking. He then took a pair of reading glasses from his pocket.  These glasses were new, and few of the men had seen him wear them. He paused, looked to the gathered officers and said: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."  Almost at once this changed the tone of the meeting.

The officers at once understood that their leader Washington had personally sacrificed a great deal for the Revolution, just as much as any of them.  Many of those present were moved to weep openly.  Despite all that sacrifices that Washington and the rest of his men were forced to make, Washington continued to remain loyal to Congress and would submit to its will. The movement to use any force against Congress ended immediately.  The assembly drafted a resolution expressing  "unshaken confidence" in Congress, and "disdain" and "abhorrence" for the proposals published earlier in the week.

Almost all successful revolutions end up devolving power onto a military strong man.  New revolutionary governments are almost by nature weak and disorganized.  The chaos and anarchy of overthrowing the established order could make even basic government functions difficult.  Typically a single strong man or dictator assumes power in order to make everything work properly.  These tend to be military leaders: Oliver Cromwell or Napoleon Bonaparte are two examples.  George Washington easily could have stepped into this role.  The army was totally loyal to him and had nothing but contempt for the Congress.  With the army's support, no one could have prevented Washington from taking control.

Washington, however, vehemently opposed any such action.  In doing so he helped to ensure the successful transition to a civilian republican government.  We take that for granted today, but at the time it could have so easily gone a different way.  Washington's steadfast loyalty to civilian control of the government may be one of his least mentioned qualities, but one that makes him a uniquely great leader.

Conclusion

Without George Washington, it is impossible to see how the Continental Army could have been guided to its ultimate success against the British Empire.  It is also very easy to see how the successful Army could have moved to a military dictatorship if not for Washington's unflagging devotion to civilian control.  Washington, of course, did reluctantly become President years later under the new Constitution.  But he genuinely seemed to take on that role reluctantly and only because no one in the country trusted anyone but Washington with that much power.  He reluctantly served a second term only because no one at any part of the legal spectrum wanted him to leave.  Doing so, it was feared, would only have led to division and possibly even civil war.  Finally, after his second term, Washington determined to take his leave and become a simple farmer once again.

Washington never shirked his duty and willingly gave up power as soon as he could.  He viewed power as an obligation rather than a reward.  This rare and valuable attitude was essential to the success of the Revolution and the creation of our Constitutional Republic.

Today we commonly see politicians who want to move beyond their Constitutional authority because they see it as the only way of reaching some desired policy goal.  Washington understood the danger of such an attitude and rejected it entirely.  He is truly the indispensable man.

Listen to a Podcast of this Episode.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Happy Independence Day: Which day is it?

Listen to a podcast of this episode.

The Fourth of July is the only US holiday that is better known by the date than the actual name: Independence Day.  Most of our holidays get moved conveniently to the nearest Monday.  But not Independence Day.  It is always celebrated on July 4th.

We celebrate July 4th as the day the 13 colonies declared themselves to be free from British rule and to become free and independent States.  The reality, however, is that by July 4, 1776, independence was already done.

Let's look back at the summer of 1776 to get a better idea of what had happened when.

On March 17, 1776, the British Army was forced to evacuate Boston, leaving all 13 colonies without any military occupation. John Adams, a Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress, had been fighting for a resolution on independence for months.  There was great resistance.  Many thought the public would not support full independence.  Some members of Congress feared that signing such a document would single them out to be hanged as leaders of the treasonous revolt should Britain prevail.

Adams had annoyed most of the delegates by the summer, and did not want the resolution to be seen as his, or even from the Massachusetts delegation.  He wanted a delegate from another state, preferably Virginia, to propose independence, and lobbied them to make this happen.

Virginia Delegate Richard Henry Lee received approval from the Virginia Convention back in his home State to move for a resolution  "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."   Adams quickly seconded the motion. That resolution was read before Congress on June 7.

After some discussion, it was decided on June 11 that a committee of five members would work on a draft declaration.  Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut and Robert R. Livingston of New York made up the committee.  Jefferson was the youngest and considered to be a fairly good writer.  So he received the task of writing up a first draft.  Congress then went into recess for several weeks.  Many delegates went home to see if they could get approval to vote for independence while the Committee worked out the language.

Many years later, John Adams reminisced about circumstances of drafting the Declaration.  You have to remember that by the time of this writing, Adams and Jefferson had been political rivals for many years and Adams had always seemed to resent how much credit Jefferson had received for his contribution to the Declaration.  So Adams may have had cause to make himself sound more gracious and involved in the draft than he may have been:

"You inquire why so young a man as Mr. Jefferson was placed at the head of the committee for preparing a Declaration of Independence? I answer: It was the Frankfort advice, to place Virginia at the head of everything. Mr. Richard Henry Lee might be gone to Virginia, to his sick family, for aught I know, but that was not the reason of Mr. Jefferson's appointment. There were three committees appointed at the same time, one for the Declaration of Independence, another for preparing articles of confederation, and another for preparing a treaty to be proposed to France. Mr. Lee was chosen for the Committee of Confederation, and it was not thought convenient that the same person should be upon both. Mr. Jefferson came into Congress in June, 1775, and brought with him a reputation for literature, science, and a happy talent of composition. Writings of his were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression. Though a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt, frank, explicit, and decisive upon committees and in conversation - not even Samuel Adams was more so - that he soon seized upon my heart; and upon this occasion I gave him my vote, and did all in my power to procure the votes of others. I think he had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me the second. The committee met, discussed the subject, and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draft, I suppose because we were the two first on the list.

The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not,' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.'

A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.

We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticized anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson's handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.

As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams."

(John Adams, letter to Thomas Pickering, Aug. 6, 1822).

Notice that last paragraph where Adams adds a jab at Jefferson about how unoriginal the Declaration was.  Many of Jefferson's opponents had criticized Jefferson's lack of originality and the fact that he borrowed heavily from other contemporary writings.  Jefferson addresses this criticism by agreeing with it:

"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion."

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825)

On June 28, the Committee submitted the Declaration to Congress for review.  Congress made quite a number of changes.  One of the most famous, or infamous, was the removal of a section condemning the King for the Institution of Slavery:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Many have pointed to the removal of this paragraph as the height of hypocrisy.  Authors drafting a document proclaiming the inalienable rights of man should not remove a passage condemning slavery.  But the reality was that the King had never forced slavery on the colonists.  The colonists had willingly participated.  Condemning the King for making them have slaves just seemed a little too far fetched.

Finally, on July 2, 1776 the Lee Resolution was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies (New York did not vote, not having approval from its State Convention). It was on this date the Congress agreed to Independence and committed to the break with Britain.  The next day, John Adams excitedly wrote to his wife:

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

(John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776).

Congress continued to make a few minor alterations and deletions on July 2, 3, and the morning of the 4th.  Late in the morning of July 4, Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration.  The Committee took the manuscript copy to John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress.  Keep in mind that what went to the printer was still a draft copy.  The final engrossed copy had not yet been made.

Mr. Dunlap apparently worked through the night making copies of the Declaration for distribution. On the morning of  July 5, copies went out to various committees, assemblies, and to the commanders of the Continental troops.

On July 9, the one hold out, New York, finally approved the Declaration when the New York Convention finally voted for approval.  Now all 13 Colonies/States were on board with Independence.

On July 19th, Congress ordered that the Declaration be "fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile [sic] of ‘The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America’ and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress."  The one change here is that the word "unanimous" was inserted because New York's tardy approval finally meant that all 13 delegations approved the declaration.  However, this does not mean every signal delegate approved it, only a majority of each colonial delegation.  In fact, Pennsylvania had to have two of its opposing delegates to abstain in order to get majority approval from the delegation.

There is some question as to who actually wrote the words on the parchment that we today consider the original Declaration of Independence.  But based on handwriting analysis, most historians believe the draftsman was Timothy Matlack, of Pennsylvania. Matlack was at the time a clerk to the secretary of the Second Continental Congress, Charles Thomson.

With the engrossed version complete, it was presented to Congress for signing on August 2. Several members who had approved the Declaration were absent. George Wythe signed on August 27. On September 4, Richard Henry Lee, Elbridge Gerry, and Oliver Wilcott signed. Matthew Thornton signed on November 19.  Delaware Delegate Thomas McKean did not sign at all in 1776.  It is not clear exactly when he got around to signing, but likely not until 1781.  He had a good excuse for some delay.  After voting for Independence McKean took up command of a militia to march off to defend New York against the British Invasion.  But he was back in Congress by 1777. It is unclear why he did not get around to signing for another four years.

Two delegates, John Dickinson and Robert R. Livingston (who was on the committee to draft the document) never signed the Declaration at all.  Another delegate, Robert Morris, who had opposed independence in debate signed anyway saying "I am not one of those politicians that run testy when my own plans are not adopted. I think it is the duty of a good citizen to follow when he cannot lead."

So the Declaration was not born on a single day.  Even if we ignore the stragglers who signed late, it took nearly two months to go from the initial proposal by Richard Lee in early June to the presentation for signing in August.  July 4 was a significant day since it was the day the language was finally approved.  But even after that, a few words were tweaked a few weeks after that.  Nobody signed on the 4th since there was no document to sign yet.  But July 4 was the date eventually written a the top of the document, so that is the date we remember as Independence Day.

Listen to a podcast of this episode.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Symbolism of the Confederate Flag

Listen to a podcast of this episode.

The Confederate flag as long been a matter of controversy.  Many on the left see it as a symbol of slavery, racism, or racial violence.  Many on the right claim it is a symbol of national heritage for southerners.  Of course, like any symbol, it can mean different things to different people.  But what is the history of the flag?

What is the Confederate Flag?

Many have said that the the familiar flag we are used to seeing with the red background, the blue cross of St. Andrew, and 13 white stars, was not the flag of the Confederate government.  That is actually not entirely true.  The full story gets a bit confusing.  But let's take a quick look at the facts:

The Confederacy's first flag had two red horizontal bars, with a white bar in between.  In then had a blue square in the upper left hand corner with a circle of stars indicating the number of States in the Confederacy.  At that time, there were only seven States in the Confederacy.

The big problem with that flag was that it could often at a glance be mistaken for the US flag.  Flags carried in battle had to be clear for one side or the other, even if they were crumpled up or damaged.  So, the Army of Northern Virginia decided to develop the familiar battle flag after the First Battle of Manassas.  The flag was eventually carried by virtually all the Confederate Armies and also flown on Confederate Naval vessels.

Almost two years into the Confederacy the government put the familiar battle flag in the corner of its flag, replacing the blue field with stars, and making the rest of the flag completely white.  But, because there was so much white, it was later decided it might be mistaken for a flag of truce.  So, they added a vertical red bar to the flag to make it stand out more.  

So, the familiar battle flag actually was at least a part of the official government flag for most of its short life span.

Some have said that the blue X in the battle flag is meant to represent the Cross of St. Andrew, from the Scottish national flag.  Many Southerners were of Scottish descent and saw the cross as a symbol of the defiance of Scottish opposition to the domination by England, much as the Southern States were opposing domination by the North.  In fact, the X was originally meant at least simply as a design element after an upright cross was rejected as being too sectarian.  Here is a letter from the man who designed the flag to Gen. Beauregard, who had requested a new flag to avoid confusion with the US flag in battle:

Richmond, August 27,1861. 
Gen. G. T. Beauregard, 
Fairfax Court house, Virginia:

Dear General, I received your letter concerning the flag yesterday, and cordially concur in all that you say. Although I was chairman of the 'Flag Committee,' who reported the present flag, it was not my individual choice. I urged upon the committee a flag of this sort. [Design sketched.] This is very rough, the proportions are bad. [Design of Confederate battle-flag as it is.]

The above is better. The ground red, the cross blue (edged with white), stars white.

This was my favorite. The three colors of red, white, and blue were preserved in it. It avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews and many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus. [Design sketched.]

Besides, in the form I proposed, the cross was more heraldic than ecclesiastical, it being the 'saltire' of heraldry, and significant of strength and progress (from the Latin salto, to leap). The stars ought always to be white, or argent, because they are then blazoned 'proper' (or natural color). Stars, too, show better on an azure field than any other. Blue stars on a white field would not be handsome or appropriate. The 'white edge' (as I term it) to the blue is partly a necessity to prevent what is called 'false blazoning,' or a solecism in heraldry, viz., blazoning color on color, or metal on metal. It would not do to put a blue cross, therefore, on a red field. Hence the white, being metal argent, is put on the red, and the blue put on the white. The introduction of white between the blue and red, adds also much to the brilliancy of the colors, and brings them out in strong relief.

But I am boring you with my pet hobby in the matter of the flag. I wish sincerely that Congress would change the present one. Your reasons are conclusive in my mind. But I fear it is just as hard now as it was at Montgomery to tear people away entirely from the desire to appropriate some reminiscence of the 'old flag.' We are now so close to the end of the session that even if we could command votes (upon a fair hearing), I greatly fear we cannot get' such hearing. Some think the provisional Congress ought to leave the matter to the permanent. This might, then, be but a provisional flag. Yet, as you truly say, after a few more victories, 'association' will come to the aid of the present flag, and then it will be more difficult than ever to effect a change. I fear nothing can be done; but I will try. I will, as soon as I can, urge the matter of the badges. The President is too sick to be seen at present by any one.

Very respectfully yours,


Wm. Porcher Miles.


So most of the flag was really about stylistic reasons and not about any particular symbolism.


Was the Civil War Really about Slavery?

Proponents of the view that the Civil War was about slavery often point to a number of quotes from various State declarations which all state rather explicitly that the primary reason for secession was over the institution of slavery.  You can read several of these here.  There is no question for secessionists, that protecting slavery and assuring that slave owners would not lose their property was the key reason for secession.  Incidentally, this was also the key reason Texas broke way from Mexico and joined the Union only a few years earlier.

As the States were announcing secession, incoming President Abraham Lincoln tried to assure the nation that the dispute was absolutely not about slavery.  He made clear in his inaugural address " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."  He goes on to say that his focus is on saving the Union, nothing about slavery. You can read the full speech here.  A little over a year later, Lincoln reiterated this view in a letter to Horace Greeley, a newspaper editor in New York.  He said "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."  This was written only a month before he announced his imminent Emancipation Proclamation, where he proclaimed some slaves free while keeping others in bondage.

It seems clear in hindsight that Lincoln was in favor of full abolition of slavery.  He had to deal with a country at war.  His northern Union contained four slave States that could possibly still have jumped ship and joined the Confederacy.  There were also large portions of the population in the north that supported the right of slavery, including his own commanding General George McClellan.  He was a smart enough politician to realize he could not come out with an immediate end of slavery without potentially putting an end to the coalition that was supporting the War effort.

What his speeches do show, however, is that the north was most certainly not solidly anti-slavery.  Views remained divided for much of the War.  Passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery, ratified shortly after Lincoln's death, was accomplished in large part due to the desire of many northern voters to punish the south for the War and for Lincoln's assassination, not necessarily out of any noble aspiration to end slavery.

Was the South solidly pro slavery?  Again, that seems to be more nuanced than many are willing to admit.  The prevailing majority view was that the right of slavery should be protected.  But that is different than saying slavery itself is a good thing.  A few years a before the was began, Robert E. Lee, future commander of all Confederate forces, wrote a letter to a friend where he said: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages"  He then goes on to condemn abolitionists for trying to end suddenly and by force something that must evolve over time.  You can read more of his letter here.

I don't think Lee's views are an aberration.  Many southerners seemed to have problems with the institution of slavery.  At the same time, however, they were extremely hostile to the idea of outsiders telling them how to deal with the situation.  It would be like if the United Nations tried to to force the United States to change some of its laws.  As Americans, even if we agreed with the changes, we might resent the UN trying to force its will on us.  Many southerners seemed to feel the same way about federal intrusion on their existing legal systems and social norms.

Of course, these justifications were also likely reinforced by the fact that abolition of slavery would impoverish the South and destroy many of the comforts that white southern elites enjoyed.  If Americans today were told the world was putting in place a new economic system which would prevent our less than 5% of the world population from enjoying 20% of world GDP, we might oppose such a scheme.   Many of us understand that it might seem unfair how much privilege and advantage we have under the current system, but giving up privilege is a hard thing.  I sure don't want to see my income cut by 75% just because someone else might think it is "fairer."

Did the Confederacy stand for racism?

OK, so even though southern views on slavery might be a bit nuanced.  Can we at least say that southerners of that time were racist?  Yes, absolutely.  Racism was a fundamental belief of virtually all Southerners.  But virtually everyone in the north was also a racist.  Abraham Lincoln was a racist if we can believe his speeches.  During the famous Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, he expressed this quite clearly:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Racism was the norm of that time period.  I should also point out that there is a very real difference between racism and racial prejudice or racial hatred.  These terms are often used interchangeably, but here are real differences.  Racism is the belief that members of one race are inherently superior to members of another.  It is simply a fact of nature, just as we believe today that human beings are superior to chimpanzees.  It does not mean that the racist necessarily hated blacks, or treated them violently, just as we don't hate chimpanzees or support cruel treatment of them today.  It simply meant that people believed that people honestly believed that blacks were not fully human and did not have the same capacities as whites. 

Today, of course, this theory of racism has been utterly rejected and is held by almost no one, other than perhaps a few fringe types.  Instead today, we call people racists who are racially prejudiced, that is associating certain traits to members of a race, such as laziness or violence.  Typically even these prejudiced people today do not believe that all blacks are inherently inferior and incapable of operating as citizens within society.  Racism as it existed in the 19th century is rightfully dead.  But it is important to understand how it existed at that time in order to appreciate the debate over slavery and abolition.

So yes, southerners were racist, but that is not what separated them from northerners. All of them were racists.  What separated them was the policies in place that would create a proper societal order in light of those racist views.

Post Civil War Racism

After the Civil War, the display of any Confederate symbol, including the flag, was a criminal act. The Courts had, shall we say, a much less enlightened view of the First Amendment back then.  So the defeated south did not use the Confederate flag much at all after the war.

In the decades following the Civil War, I am not aware of much of any use of the Confederate flag, even by the KKK.  It was the symbol of a lost cause and largely put away.  Perhaps it was used in secret, but I am not aware of any public displays  A generation later, once begins to see the use of the Confederate Flag again.  Mississippi adopted the flag as a portion of its State flag, which it still uses today.  This does not appear to be motivated by racism or any reaction to Federal control.  Rather it appears to be a way for State leaders to honor the prior generation, their parents, who fought in the Civil War.

Into the early 20th Century, one begins to see greater use of the Confederate flag as a symbol of regional pride.  Ironically, one place the flag was absent was in the KKK. Most Klan rallies of this era used the US flag.  The KKK of the early 20th century considered themselves the standard bearers of US tradition and liberties, opposing not only reforms for blacks but also opposition to immigration, and religious traditions outside of Protestantism.  The Klan of this era was not focused on the south either.  Large Klan organizations existed throughout the north and midwest. The KKK associated itself with real America, not in opposition to it.  Take a look at these pictures from early 20th Century Klan parades.  Plenty of US flags, no Confederate flags.

The real changes came in the 1950's and 1960's when the Federal Government began passing laws related to desegregation and nondiscrimination.  This led to a renewed resurgence in the South for the use of the flag as a symbol of opposition to federal "interference" with what were regarded as State and local issues.

It was during this period where one sees the Confederate flag incorporated into a number of southern State flags, or the flag flying over State capitols.  It also became more popular with individual southerners or racist groups such as the KKK. But even here, the use of the flag was not directly racist.  It was focused on opposition to interference in State polices.  Of course, the State policies in question did seem to be based on racism.  This is why many on the left today associate the flag with racism and want it abolished, or at least banished to museums, along side the "whites only" bathroom signs and KKK crosses.

Symbolism of the Flag Today

The Confederate flag, like all flags, does not have any real power or meaning other than symbolism.  It symbolizes different things to different people.  Simply saying the flag represents racism misses much of the point.  Today at many leftist protests, we see protesters often wearing Guy Fawkes masks.  Guy Fawkes, of course, is remembered for trying to pull off the terrorist act of blowing up the British Parliament in 1605 to protest British suppression of Catholicism.  Of course, none of the protesters today are supporting terrorism, blowing up legislatures, or focusing the rights of oppressed Catholics - or even religious discrimination generally. Fawkes' symbolism is all about opposition to government power and bad government policies generally. 

Similarly, for many, the Confederate flag is about opposition to government oppression or overreach.  It represents the single largest effort since the American Revolution to oppose the power of the federal government.  The flag is simply a way of objecting to federal power.  For others, it is a way of remembering their ancestors.  For others, though, the flag is inextricably linked to the racism of the mid 19th Century, and also to the opposition to civil rights of the mid 20th Century.  It is a symbol of the continued attempts to oppress black people and to prevent them from fully participating in the US as full citizens.  

The debate will, of course continue.  My hope in this post is simply to show that there are a variety of reasons why people display the flag and how they view the flag.  

Listen to a podcast of this episode.