USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Boston's immigrants, 1790-1865 : a study in acculturation > Part 19
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25
Rantoul and Morton had blasted the stability of the Demo- crats, but the Whig party was the first torn asunder by the
60 Richard O'Gorman to W. S. O'Brien, May 24, 1849, W. S. O'Brien Papers and Letters, 1819-1854 (MSS., N. L. I.), XVIII, no. 2, 547.
61 Cf. Darling, op. cit., 312 ff.
200
BOSTON'S IMMIGRANTS, 1790-1865
anti-slavery men. In the early forties, some members had al- ready deserted to the Liberty party, but until 1846 most anti-slavery Whigs continued to believe in "reform within the Party." Even in that year the magic personality of Webster nullified the damage done by Southern aggressions and the turbulent Texas and Mexico questions, and held in rein such conscientious rebels as Stephen C. Phillips, Charles Allen, and Sumner. But the Whig nomination of a slaveholder to the presidency and the rejection of the Wilmot Proviso by their National Convention in 1848 opened an unbridgeable gap be- tween the two factions, though the Whigs remained strong enough to win the gubernatorial election that year and again in 1849.62
A similar development among the Democrats led a few to support Van Buren, the Free-Soil nominee in 1848, but the party quickly united to profit from the more serious division of its rivals. In addition, hoping for a coalition, it offered the Whig dissidents an anti-slavery plank in 1849. But these over- tures failed; Free-Soilers still preferred cooperation with the Whigs to alliance with the Democrats who, nationally, were the most prominent supporters of the South's peculiar institution. But while Webster squinted at the federal scene and dreamed of the White House, the Whigs would have no meddling with reform. Though controlling the legislature of 1849, they failed to pass a single Free-Soil measure. Finally, their support of the Fugitive Slave Law, and particularly Webster's role in its enactment, completed the cleavage and consolidated the Free- Soil party in Massachusetts. 63
When the gubernatorial election of 1850 gave no candidate a majority, Democratic ambitions, after seven years of famine,
62 Cf. Robinson, op. cit., 28-38, 416, 513; Bean, op. cit., 8-38; Darling, op. cit., 245 ff., 317, 334, 290, n. 67, 326; Wilson, op. cit., I, 545 ff., II, 145 ff .; George S. Merriam, Life and Times of Samuel Bowles (New York, 1885), I, 45 ff .; Reunion of the Free-Soilers of 1848-1852 . . . June 28, 1888 (Cambridge, 1888), 15, 17; Hart, op. cit., IV, 97; Grimke, op. cit., 182 ff., 190 ff.
Bean, op. cit., 17, 28, 35 ff., 53 ff .; Darling, op. cit., 340, 349-354; Grimke, op. cit., 205; Haynes, loc. cit., 80; Wilson, op. cit., II, 247 ff.
201
GROUP CONFLICT
approached fulfillment. The constitution provided for the choice of a governor by an absolute majority, in the absence of which the election was thrown into the legislature - a situation susceptible to a great deal of political maneuvering. In this election the Democratic state platform had endorsed the Free- Soil program, though without a formal coalition. A trade be- tween the two parties, which together had a majority in the legislature convened in January, 1851, was inevitable. The Free-Soilers, anxious to be heard in Washington, were im- patient with the Whig demand that the designation of a sena- tor wait eleven months for a new legislature, and threw their votes for a Democratic governor. In return, the Democrats supported a radical policy and handed the United States sena- torship and the organization of the legislature to the Free- Soilers. Banks became speaker of the House, and Henry Wilson, president of the Senate; though the former was nom- inally a Democrat, both were actually Free-Soilers. The reformers got the better of the bargain, passing a series of radical measures, including a general incorporation law to break the power of monopolies, a law for more democratic control of Harvard College, a homestead and mechanics' lien law, and measures ensuring the secret ballot and plurality vot- ing in national elections.64
The coalition held through the election of 1851. But though the Free-Soilers managed to push through the Maine Law over Governor Boutwell's veto, they were dissatisfied. They disliked the governor, who had obstructed many reform meas- ures, and distrusted their Democratic allies, who had bolted in considerable numbers on Sumner's election to the United States Senate and had contrived to defeat a personal liberty law, acts to liberalize divorce, to protect the property rights of women, and to extend the powers of juries. Whittier voiced the apprehension of the Free-Soilers when he wrote, after seeing
64 Cf. Bean, op. cit., 54, 57, 64-87; Wilson, op. cit., II, 347 ff .; Address to the People of Massachusetts (s.l., n.d., [Boston, 1852]), 3, 6, 7, 10 ff .; Robinson, op. cit., 47, 433 ; Hart, op. cit., IV, 99, 475.
202
BOSTON'S IMMIGRANTS, 1790-1865
the governor's first message, "It is . . . monstrous and in- sulting. May God forgive us for permitting his election." 65
The Free-Soilers now recognized the need of a reform in government to gain complete control of the State - a reform impossible under the existing conditions of amending the con- stitution which called for a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives of two successive legislatures on each clause.66 With parties divided as they were, a simple majority was dif-
ficult enough, two-thirds almost impossible and two-thirds in two successive legislatures, out of the question. One solution was to change the basis of representation to reduce the influ- ence of the conservative elements opposing them in Boston. But an attempt to do so in 1851 failed, leaving the reformers no alternative but a complete revamping of the constitution by a convention.67
In 1851 the Free-Soilers forced through the legislature a resolution for a constitutional convention. But when the ques- tion was presented to the voters, Democratic support was weak. The Irish, theretofore consistently Democrats, failed to follow their representatives who had indorsed revision. In the elec- tion several thousand who had voted for coalition candidates, turned against the constitutional convention.68 Of these, more than 1, 100 were in Boston, and they were predominantly Irish Democrats bolting the party.69
65 Alfred S. Roe, "Governors of Massachusetts ... ," New England Mag- azine, January, 1902, XXV, 547; Bean, op. cit., 90-92, 113-120; Robinson, op. cit., 433; Address, 5 ff .; Grimke, op. cit., 209.
66 A simple majority sufficed in the Senate (Bean, op. cit., 116; Morison, op. cit., 38).
67 Bean, op. cit., 88, 89. Legislators from Boston were elected on a general ticket which usually denied representation to minorities and gave the whole dele- gation to the Whigs (cf. Morison, op. cit., 41).
The election of 1851:
GOVERNOR
CONVENTION
State
Boston
State
Boston
Winthrop (W)
64,611
7,388
no
65,846
7,135
Boutwell (D)
43,992
3,632
Palfrey (FS)
28,599
1,294 yes 60,972 3,813
(Boston Semi-Weekly Advertiser, November 12, 1851; Bean, op. cit., 109, III). Cf. also Morison, op. cit., 42.
69 Bean's claim that the Free-Soilers bolted (op. cit., III) is wholly illogical
203
GROUP CONFLICT
When the Democratic State Convention again supported co- alition and revision the following year, the Irish, under J. W. James, the Repeal leader, finally seceded from the party. Though opposing the Democrats in the state election of 1852, they supported the national Democratic party which had re- pudiated Rantoul and coalition and whose presidential candi- date, Pierce, was most acceptable as a conservative. Following the advice of Brownson and the Pilot, the Boston Irish became national Democrats and state Whigs. As a result of the confu- sion, the coalition ticket lost, but the project for a convention won.70
Impressed with the opportunity the convention presented for strengthening the party and consolidating its position, the Free-Soilers made special exertions in the March election and gained control. Their imprint upon the constitution that re- sulted was unmistakable. Single unit senatorial districts and plurality elections by secret ballots were proposed. To decrease the power of the executive, many appointive offices, including the Council, became elective; the judiciary was controlled by limiting the term of office and extending the powers of jurors; and the use of public funds for religious education was pro- hibited. While these measures would render government more responsive to the voice of the people, the proposed constitution was undemocratic in its most important provision. By changing the system of representation to favor country towns at the ex- pense of large cities, bailiwicks of conservatism, the reformers unquestionably compromised their principles.71
With one important exception party lines held in the vote on the adoption of the constitution. The opposition of the few
since they wanted the convention and the Irish did not (for the Free-Soiler's attitude on constitutional change, cf. Robinson, op. cit., 401 ff.).
70 Cf. in general, Bean, op. cit., 127 ff., 217-220. For the new attempt to revise the constitution, cf. Massachusetts Senate Documents, 1852, no. 36, pp. 6 ff.
71 Cf. J. B. Mann, Life of Henry Wilson ... (Boston, 1872), 36 ff .; Hon. Charles Allen, Speech ... at Worcester, Nov. 5, 1853 (s.l., n.d.), 1-3; Bean, op. cit., 147-166; Morison, op. cit., 49-60; Henry F. Brownson, Orestes A. Brownson's Middle Life ... (Detroit, 1899), II, 465, 466; Mann, op. cit., 43.
204
BOSTON'S IMMIGRANTS, 1790-1865
conscientious Free-Soilers who would not support the unfair system of representation was trivial compared with the force of conservative Irish Catholic opinion clamoring for defeat.72 At the Democratic Convention which indorsed the constitution, James again led a seceding group of Boston Irishmen who formed a party of their own. Pressure for recruitment and or- ganization of voters increased. In September the Calvert Nat- uralization Society in the South End joined the Ward Three Association of the North End. The Pilot repeatedly warned that "No Catholic ... can possibly vote for this . .. Con- stitution without giving up rights for which he has been all along contending," and Brownson pointed out its revolutionary implications.73
In their campaign, the Irish joined the die-hard Whigs under Abbott Lawrence, who led "hundreds of honest men gulled by their sophistry," in opposing a constitution which seriously curtailed the influences of State Street in politics. Lawrence conferred with Bishop Fitzpatrick on the problem, and Whig newspapers appealed particularly to the Irish. Against this alliance the reformers' contention that the Boston Pilot was "trying to lead Irishmen into the jaws of a Boston aristocracy as remorseless as the one they had left Ireland to get rid of" counted little. The combination of Irish votes and cotton money in Boston defeated the constitution and elected a Whig ticket.74
In this crisis the reformers inveighed against the lords of
72 For Free-Soil opposition, cf. Bean, op. cit., 168, 177.
73 Cf. Brownson, Brownson's Middle Life, II, 455 ff .; Dissertation Copy, 377- 378; Bean, op. cit., 221.
74 Robinson, op. cit., 204; Bean, op. cit., 162, 166, 174-179; Butler, op. cit., 119. The analysis of the vote from which Morison concludes that "the wards where most of the Irish-born population then lived did not poll so heavy a negative vote as the fashionable residential districts" (op. cit., 63) is not valid because the wards were gerrymandered in the redistricting of 1850 to split the Irish vote (cf. Dissertation Copy, 383). Even in 1854 votes against the Know- Nothings showed no special concentration in any area (cf. Boston Atlas, Novem- ber 14, 1854). Bean has shown that votes to defeat the constitution came from Boston: the 5,915 negative balance of Suffolk County more than offset the 997 positive balance elsewhere in the state (op. cit., 173).
205
GROUP CONFLICT
the counting house and bemoaned the slowness of rank-and- file Whigs to recognize their true interests, but concluded that while the former could never be redeemed, and the latter would have to be educated, the main obstacle to reform was Catholic opposition. And by this time they had learned that differences with the Irish were too deep to be easily eradicated; they could only be fought. Butler, sensitive to every shift in popular opinion, realized that the "performance, which struck down the Constitution, invoked a bitterness among the people against the Catholic religion, such as had never before been, to any considerable degree, either felt or foreshadowed in the State of Massachusetts." 75
Through the early months of 1854 a series of unconnected events heightened resentment against Catholics and evoked many antipathies developed since 1830. In December, 1853, Father Gavazzi, a rebellious priest, lectured in Boston on the reactionary rôle of the Church.76 A few months later, the visit of the papal nuncio Bedini, who had been connected with the massacre of revolutionaries in Bologna, though not provoking the expected riot, did refresh memories of Irish opposition to liberalism.77 Meanwhile, events at home confirmed that im- pression. Failure of the enforcement of the prohibition laws was laid at the door of the Irish, and the State Temperance Committee announced it would fight Catholicism as part of its struggle for human freedom.78 The Burns case clearly linked the immigrants to pro-slavery forces and man-hunters. The Pilot supported the rendition of the fugitive slave; and the selection of the Columbian Artillery and Sarsfield Guards to protect him against indignant mobs seeking his freedom, in- cited an inflammatory handbill:
75 Butler, op. cit., 120.
Cf. Boston Semi-Weekly Advertiser, November 30, December 3, 1853; 76 Billington, op. cit., 301.
77 Boston Pilot, October 8, 1853, February II, 1854; Billington, op. cit., 300- 302 ; Desmond, op. cit., 72; Shea, op. cit., IV, 360 ff.
78 Massachusetts Life Boat, September 19, 1854; cf. also Address of the State Temperance Committee to the Citizens of Massachusetts on the Operation of the Anti-Liquor Law (Boston, 1853), 2; Billington, op. cit., 323.
206
BOSTON'S IMMIGRANTS, 1790-1865
AMERICANS TO THE RESCUE! AMERICANS! SONS OF THE REVOLUTION !! A body of seventy-five Irishmen, known as the "Columbian Artillery"
have volunteered their services to shoot down the citizens of Boston! and are now under arms to defend Virginia in kidnapping a Citizen of Massachusetts! Americans! These Irishmen have called us "Cowards and Sons of Cowards!" Shall we submit to have our Citizens shot down by a set of Vagabond Irishmen?
that turned many reformers against the Irish.79 Finally, their defense of the Kansas-Nebraska Act connected them with the slave power, and drew criticism from such respectable sources as the Commonwealth, the Worcester Spy, and Theodore Parker.80
Distrust of the Irish at once encouraged and was stimulated by attacks upon Catholics. Hatred and violence marched arm in arm, sustaining and strengthening each other. Early in 1853, the purported kidnapping of Hannah Corcoran, a Baptist convert, almost led to a riot. In the same year the city gov- ernment entered into a long drawn out controversy with the Catholics over their right to build a church on the "Jail lands." In May, 1854, John S. Orr, the Angel Gabriel, led a mob that carried away a cross from the Catholic Church in Chelsea, and in July a church was blown up in Dorchester. The Wide Awake: and the Spirit of Washington, a vituperative sheet, ap- peared in October, 1854 to combat the "swarms of lazaroni from abroad;" and a venomous stream of anti-Papist literature reached Boston, particularly in the form of Frothingham's convent novels (1854).81
79 Cf. Boston Pilot, June 3, 1854; Irish-American, September 23, 1854; Bill- ington, op. cit., 435, n. 81; Bean, op. cit., 187, 239, 24I.
80 Cf. Bean, loc. cit., 239 ff .; Carl Wittke, We Who Built America . . . (New York, 1939), 168.
81 Boston Pilot, April 9, December 10, 1853, May 13, 1854, January 20, 1855; Wide Awake: and the Spirit of Washington (Boston), October 7, 1854; Billing- ton, op. cit., 305-313, 348 ff., 368; Bean, op. cit., 207, 209; Shea, op. cit., IV,
207
GROUP CONFLICT
Meanwhile, as slavery absorbed the attention of Congress and the country, excited Free-Soilers found "every indication that the people are awakening from their unaccountable stupor on the . . . question." 82 The Kansas-Nebraska Bill infuriated even Everett and the conservative Webster Whigs. Sumner's correspondents informed him that "all parties seem to be ap- proaching that happy state of ... dissolution, for which we have sighed so long." 83 A Freedom Party tentatively formed in Boston, a "Republican" convention adopted a radical pro- gram, and a host of excited energies eagerly sought an outlet. Precisely where the immense anti-slavery impulse would be exerted was uncertain, however.84
But the Boston municipal elections of December, 1853, had already revealed the ultimate outlet. Only one month after their decisive defeat on the constitution, the reformers rallied to resist the reëlection of Nathaniel Seaver, a Whig supported by the liquor interests. As the "Citizens Union Party," they appealed to nativist feelings and drew 2,000 Whig votes, the entire Free-Soil vote, and 500 voters who had not troubled to go to the polls a month earlier.85 These 500 voters came from a tremendous fund of non-voting citizens, many of them Whigs disgusted with their party's vacillation.86 The lesson to the reformers was obvious and was confirmed by simultaneous elec-
509; Charles W. Frothingham, Six Hours in a Convent : - or - The Stolen Nuns! ... (Boston, 1855).
82 Albert G. Browne to Sumner, July 28, 1854, Sumner Correspondence (MSS., H. C. L.), XXV, no. 109.
83 Seth Webb, Jr., July 14, 1854, ibid., XXV, no. 72 ; also Bean, op. cit., 188 ff.
84 Cf. Amasa Walker to Sumner, Sumner Correspondence, July 2, 1854, XXV, no. 15; Bean, op. cit., 193; Merriam, op. cit., I, 122.
Cf. Boston Semi-Weekly Advertiser, December 10, 1853.
BOSTON ELECTIONS, 1853
Governor
(November)
Mayor
(December)
Whig
7,730
Whig
5,651
Free-Soil
1,403
Citizen's Union
4,69 1
Coalition Democrat
2,455
Young Men's League
2,010
Hunker Democrat
82I
Democrat
596
Total 12,409 Total 12,948 (Boston Semi-Weekly Advertiser, November 16, December 14, 1853).
86 Cf. Darling, op. cit., 290; infra, Table XXVIII.
.
208
BOSTON'S IMMIGRANTS, 1790-1865
tions in Charlestown and Roxbury:87 the Irish stood in the way of reform; reform forces could best be augmented and galvanized on an anti-Irish basis; the dormant voters must be awakened by an anti-alien alarm.
By 1853 the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner, a nativist secret organization popularly known as the Know-Nothings, had emerged in New York State.88 Early in 1854 it spread into Massachusetts, swiftly, though quietly and unobtrusively, drawing "into its lodges tens of thousands of . . . anti-Ne- braska men, ripe for Republicanism. . . . " 89 These recruits, inwardly ashamed of adopting means incompatible with the principles they professed, wrapped themselves in mantles of secrecy which served as a "spiritual fist-law" for gaining as- cendancy without the use of force, and pursued their "purposes with the same disregard of the purposes of the structure ex- ternal to ... [themselves] which in the case of the individ- ual is called egoism." 90
In July, Henry Wilson, already a member, began to harness Know-Nothingism to the anti-slavery cause, and Seth Webb, Jr., decided, "Know-Nothingism is to be an important, perhaps the controlling, element in our state election; & it will prob- ably take us out of the hands of the Whigs. Into whose hands it will put us, nobody can tell." 91 The Know-Nothings pre- sented the clearest platform in the next election. Without the support of the intellectual fronts of reform - Adams, Phillips and Sumner - who felt no ends justified nativist methods, they elected Henry J. Gardner, formerly president of the Boston Common Council, to the governorship by the unprece-
87 Cf. Bean, op. cit., 246.
88 Cf. Billington, op. cit., 380; Bean, op. cit., 226; Desmond, op. cit., 60; Scisco, op. cit., 63 ff., 71 ff.
Pearson, op. cit., I, 65.
90 Cf. Georg Simmel, "Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies," American Journal of Sociology, January, 1906, XI, 446 ff., 489.
91 Webb to Sumner, July 14, 1854, Sumner Correspondence, XXV, no. 72 ; cf. also Wilson to Sumner, July 2, 1854, ibid., XXV, no. 12; Bean, op. cit., 192 ; Harry J. Carman and R. H. Luthin, "Some Aspects of the Know-Nothing Move- ment Reconsidered," South Atlantic Quarterly, April, 1940, XXXIX, 221.
209
GROUP CONFLICT
dented majority of 33,000, and gained complete control of the legislature in November. Until 1857, they ruled the state.92
Everywhere the success of the party rested upon thousands of new men drawn into politics by nativism.93 The complexion of the new legislators reflected the ranks from which they rose. Among them were no politicians, and few lawyers. They were true representatives of those for whom they spoke. They in- cluded a few rascals and self-seekers; but by and large they were honest men, convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the community. Even the Democratic editor of the Post had to admit later that "the moral tone of the party was unquestioned. . . . " 94 Many did not even feel a personal antagonism to the Irish; J. V. C. Smith, an amateur sculptor, and Know-Nothing Mayor in 1854, associated with them in business and executed a fine bust of Bishop Fitzpatrick.95
Although the Know-Nothings made numerous mistakes, their administration was progressive and fruitful. They relaid the basis for the school system, abolished imprisonment for debt, established the first insurance commission, took the first steps to eliminate danger from railroad crossings, extended the power
92 Roe, loc. cit., 653; Haynes, loc. cit., 68; Bean, op. cit., 259 ff .; George H. Haynes, "Know-Nothing Legislature," New England Magazine, March, 1897, XVI, 21, 22.
93 Robinson, op. cit., 219. In Boston, I,IOI voters who had not gone to the polls in 1853 cast their ballots for the Know-Nothings together with the whole coalition reform vote, and almost half the Whig vote.
GUBERNATORIAL VOTES IN BOSTON
1853
1854
Whig
7,730
4,196
Know-Nothing
7,66I
Free-Soil
1,403
40I
Democrat
2,455
1,252
Hunker Democrat
82I
12,409
13,5IO
(Boston Atlas, November 14, 1854; Boston Semi-Weekly Advertiser, Novem- ber 16, 1853).
84 Benjamin P. Shillaber, "Experiences during Many Years," New England Magazine, August, 1893, VIII, 722; George H. Haynes, "Know-Nothing Legis- lature," Annual Report of the American Historical Association . 1896 (Wash- ington, 1897), I, 178 ff .; Roe, loc. cit., 654.
State Street Trust Company, Mayors of Boston, 23.
210
BOSTON'S IMMIGRANTS, 1790-1865
of juries, strengthened the temperance, homestead and women's rights laws, made vaccination compulsory, and assumed a firm anti-slavery position by passing a personal liberty law and petitioning for the removal of Judge Loring who had presided at the fugitive slave cases. In general, they embodied in their legislation the program of the party of reform. By 1855, they had sent Wilson to the United States Senate, amended the con- stitution so that a plurality sufficed in the gubernatorial elec- tion, and introduced many other innovations vetoed by the more conservative governor.96
The party's anti-foreign accomplishments were quite insig- nificant. To begin with, they disclaimed any intention of ex- cluding immigrants, but stressed the necessity of making them "be as we are." 97 The most prominent achievement was the disbanding of the Irish military companies which annoyed natives particularly because they carried off prizes at drills. They served no useful purpose and in 1853 the Boston Pilot had itself suggested their dissolution. A breach of military discipline provided the pretext for the abolition of the Bay State Artillery in September, followed early the next year by the elimination of the remaining companies. Foreigners on the police force and in State agencies were discharged, and a num- ber of cruel deportations displayed an ugly animus against help- less aliens. Finally, the misdeeds of individual members, not- ably of the Hiss Nunnery Committee, were exploited by the opposition and did much to discredit the party and obscure its constructive achievements.98
Ostensibly the party had acquired power to restrict the in- fluence of immigrants in politics. Yet, though it had absolute
98 Cf. Billington, op. cit., 425; Robinson, op. cit., 62, 209, 210; Bean, op. cit., 166, 268, 272-277, 284, 286-288; Merriam, op. cit., I, 126, 132 ff., 164; Haynes, "Know-Nothing Legislature," Annual Report of the American Historical Asso- ciation . . . 1896, I, 180-184; Bean, loc. cit., 322.
98 Bean, op. cit., 261.
Cf. Dissertation Copy, 389; Desmond, op. cit., 77; Boston Pilot, May 13, 1854, April 7, May 12, 1855; Abbott, Immigration, 160, 161 ; Billington, op. cit., 414 ff .; Bean, op. cit., 291 ff .; Shea, op. cit., IV, 510.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.