Talk:Know Nothing

Labor and Feminism

From a national perspective, there's no evidence that the Know Nothing/American Party placed a major emphasis on labor or women's rights. The mention of both in this article are connected to a single source about the KNs in Massachusetts, Taylor (2000). Looking at that source, the labor issues the KN candidates pushed were a 10-hour workday and secret ballots (so that factory owners couldn't threaten workers based upon who they voted for); they failed to implement these once elected to office and labor support for the KNs in Massachusetts quickly fell away. For women's rights, they did enact legislation enshrining individual property rights of women, as well as allowing married women to take legal action without permission from their husbands; however, there's no evidence that this was a policy issue in other states.

Looking at the 1855 American Party's national platform, the only issues endorsed were: 1) change immigration/naturalization laws to require 21 years of residence before being allowed to vote; 2) all state and federal office holders must be "native born citizens"; 3) total opposition to "a union of Church and State"; 4) in favor of the National Union and opposed to efforts to "alienate any portion of our country from the rest"; and 5) ardent attachment to the Constitution and the rights of individual citizens "as well as of the Sovereign States composing the American Union." The last two were effectively pro-slavery (or pro-restoration of the Missouri Compromise) planks that came after the rejection of clear anti-slavery positions. Labor and women's issues weren't a focus at all. from The New York Times's coverage of the 1855 KN convention

It's clear the party was anti-Catholic even though the Louisiana branch rejected a religious test and elected at least one Catholic Creole to Congress as a Know Nothing. It's clear that in Massachusetts, there were pro-labor and pro-women policies, even though those issues did not appear in the party's national platforms. In California, the KNs were opposed to Chinese immigrants, but generally were not opposed to European immigrants. At the national level, the party was nativist, anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, and anti-immigration; while the state-level differences from those national positions should be noted, they shouldn't be presented as more than exceptions from the party's national focus. They shouldn't be included in the infobox or over-emphasized in the article in a way that makes it appear the party was broadly in favor of those positions.

If sources exist showing these policies were more widespread among the KNs, I'd be more than willing to revise my position, but I'm not finding any indication that that's the case. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, they did use populism to get ahead in the political battlefield. While nativism was the party's main focus, one can compare it to the America First Committee, which held syncretic support from the masses. While opposition to immigration united the party's base, I have read that progressivism was used to assist in appealing to the people; for example, if they campaigned on pro-union stances and neglected to fulfill said stances, that is an example of populism.

As a leftist, I know for a fact that leftists in history have been opposed to bigotry. If a party of right-wingers like the Know-Nothings utilized left-wing themes to garner support, then your question's answer could be that the left-wing policies enacted were in spite of them, rather than due to them; heck, they could've supported it and still be a right-wing bigot. Either way, populism could be the reason they appear to be progressive on some things while in reality they are not. Western Progressivist (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, it's the 1850s. The modern left–right political axis didn't exist in the U.S. at this point, and the movements that were looking to breakaway from the status quo were often based around moral reform movements (i.e., temperance), not so much progressivism. There were abolitionist, feminist, and labor groups in the mix, but even the abolitionists weren't united fully behind anti-bigotry; many could and did believe that slavery was wrong without accepting that Blacks and whites were equal. Regardless, it doesn't really change the issue of the degree to which the policies of one state-level version of the party should shape how the national party as a whole is described. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So, at the very worst, we could describe this movement as a conservative big tent party? Using critical thinking, you're correct on how a single local organization can't define the whole thing. It is like a socialist party having a rouge chapter that espoused far-right rhetoric.

Also, I know that there was racism in the feminist movement, but the labor movement I do not know about. Could you tell me more? Western Progressivist (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"racism in the feminist movement, but the labor movement I do not know about" You may need to check the article on Immigration policies of American labor unions: "In the first half of the 20th century, the majority of labor unions within the American Federation of Labor (AFL) were strongly anti-immigration, looking to curtail immigration, causing the AFL itself to adopt restrictive policies and resolutions. The predominant viewpoint in the AFL in the early 20th century saw the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as a model piece of legislation for restricting Asian immigration and favored its expansion to include Japanese and Korean immigrants." Dimadick (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully speaking, this entire conversation is null and void because most modern American political thought, be it Progressivism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism, Libertarianism, etc. is mostly an outgrowth of the Progressive era. Any discussion of political ideology before then is not applicable to the modern world. For example, Thaddeus Stevens, one of the strongest advocates within the Radical Republicans for racial integration and equality, was a former Know Nothing, and as far as I can tell never changed his view towards Catholicism or immigration. So was Stevens a progressive or a conservative? The answer is neither, since our contemporary understanding of what those terms mean didn't exist at the time, and to retroactively apply them would be questionable at best.

Its clear that the Know Nothings were inspired by the Enlightenment ideal of republican government, and syncretized this with hatred for the Catholic faith and immigrants. The party favored the Protestant faith, but not necessarily to the point of religious supremacy over all other faiths. For example, the founder of the Know Nothings, Lewis Charles Levin, was a praciticing Jew who never renounced or gave up his own faith, but nonetheless advocated for public office to be a "Protestant duty," even leading a pogrom of Irish Catholics in Philadelphia in 1844. The Know Nothings were also extremely patriotic, using the imagery of the American flag and other American national symbols in their campaigning. Finally, the Know Nothings blamed Catholicism and the Catholic clergy for undermining the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, fearing the rise of Catholicism in the United States would do the same. These ideological trends are a mix of American patriotism, Xenophobia, and Radicalism. While I think calling the movement to be "right-wing" wouldn't be wrong, to call it "conservative" would be to ignore the diversity of political thought that brought it about. Modern anti-immigrant conservatives in the United States don't tend to have the strong attachment to liberal democracy that the Know Nothings did. And practically none would move from the far-right to the left on any major issues, like how Thaddeus Stevens did. Nor were conservatives at the time similar to contemporary conservatives, most of whom were concentrated in the Whig Party and were more busy trying to reestablish the Second Bank of the United States, establish a compulsory education system to teach Christian values, and oppose the Mexican-American War than banning Catholic immigrants. Ultimately, I just think this conversation of "what contemporary ideology were the Know Nothings" is tiring and entirely useless.

And yes, different state branches of the Know Nothing Party had different policy agendas. The California Know Nothings were not anti-Irish or anti-German but were anti-Chinese. Yes, the Louisiana Know Nothings were anti-immigrant but were not anti-Catholic due to that state's religious demographics. Yes, the Massachusetts Know Nothings did support labor unions and women's suffrage. And, contrary to Carter's point, yes, the conspiratorial thinking of the Know Nothings led many to believe that "Slave Power" was secretly running the United States government and thus slavery should be abolished to abolish their power. Know Nothings of this abolitionist ilk later ran as their own Republican-aligned third party, called the "North American Party." Their ideology is not in line with any contemporary understanding of "progressive" or "conservative." MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Renaming to American Party (1850s)

A debate on this topic was previously held in 2006, but I think it lacked rigor and disagree with its conclusion. I propose this article should be renamed American Party (1850s), consistent with conventions on naming for political parties. "Know Nothing" was an epithet used by the party's opponents and is a reference not to the party itself but to the secret organizations which organized wing. (To the extent the party/movement had a nickname for itself, it was "SAM.") It is a step or two removed (in that the name was more common and less vulgar) from articles titled "Demonrats" or "Rethuglicans" for those modern parties. The section on Legacy even recognizes this but fails to note the term was a "provocative slur" from the start. This misuse has also bled over into other articles on elections that the (Native) American Party participated in and has become an issue throughout Wikipedia.

Implication was made in the 2006 debate that "Know Nothing" refers to a broader political movement than the Party, which would potentially make it an appropriate name for an article even if an epithet, but this article is explicitly about the party itself. (I also question whether such an article could even clearly be delineated from Nativism in United States politics; more likely it would be a subsection of that article. The postscript to the 2006 debate notes that this article was then poorly written, and I think it has made major improvements since then—the title is a remnant of a simpler time. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

the reliable sources overwhelmingly prefer "Know Nothing" (see the bibliography) and their position is what Wikipedia reports. Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen's point. The academic and popular literature overwhelmingly use "Know Nothing" for the party, so we follow the sources. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalist or Christian nationalist?

In my own opinion, I am not entirely sure which one the Know Nothings fit into, though I am personally leaning towards Christian nationalist. While the Know Nothings were far more sympathetic to Americans of English decent, it seems as the basis for their discrimination was more focused on whether or not one was a Catholic or a Protestant. I think this expressed in the fact that the party's leader, Lewis Charles Levin, was an American Jew who never converted from his Jewish faith but who also proclaimed that public office was a Protestant duty. Though if there is anyone with a good reason as to why "ethnonationalism" is listed in the ideology section, I'd be glad to concede. I just personally understand Know Nothingism to be more anti-Catholic than ethnically anti-Irish (if it was only anti-Irish, why did they also target German and even Chinese immigrants at times?). It also might be stated that these two categories are not mutually exclusive, though I would still argue that the conspiracy theories about a second Vatican in Cincinnati might have more to do with their beliefs being religiously sectarian than ethnically driven. I would also argue the large number of early Republicans, including the leader of the abolitionist, racially integrationist, and hardline reconstructionist Radical Republicans, Thaddeus Stevens, having been former Know Nothings, undermines the argument the Know Nothings were ethnonationalists.

The know nothing movement wasn't a political party

The know nothing move ment was not a political party but a movement within the Democratic party. That would be like saying the trans perons that shot up that catholic school was part of the lgbtq+ political party their is no such thing. Jhon wilkes booth was a democrat that belonged to the know nothing movement. You need to correct that its misinformation. 2603:6011:8F00:5324:ADAA:8C90:2350:1775 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please rewrite this for the sake of clarity. No one knows what you are talking about.

In any case, the Know Nothings acted a lot like an independent political party. They had their own political organization, they campaigned, they had close connections with underground anti-immigrant groups they even ran former president Millard Filmore as their own separate candidate in the 1856 United States presidential election, who ended up winning the electoral votes from the State of Maryland. As for John Wilkes Booth, it seems merely as he was a deeply hateful and xenophobic man, who hated Black Americans as much as he hated Catholics and immigrants, and thus hated the man who had freed them from bondage MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)