Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-07-12

The Flights and Duttea 81 Easura1EEed
oItixens.-.Csen. xelafeofser,s letter.
Tho publication Of the letter from Gov HARRIS,
in our last paper, renders unnecessary any further
discussion Of the subject therein referred TO- as
question connected with the present pOliicaa can
vass in Tennessee But we desire to point out some
Of fact and argument in the late letter Of Gen.
zoLLlcOFFER, as published in the Opposition papers
Of this city. We are not in the habit Of interfer-
ing with the quiet Of those who "havs withirawn
from official station, after years Of public services"
and We can understand how grateful the "respite
from discussion Of public questions" must be in
such cases. We take it for granted, after these
Wsll-exprsssed sentences, that the General is fond
Of retirement; that his position at the heal Of the
State Executive Committee was accepted with great
reluctance; aud that the immense labor which it is
evident is being performed by that committee is the
labor foshers 1t WAS greatly cruel in our natural
lied citizens to break in upon the repose which the
General vas SO happily enjoying. Az they have
disturbed his slnmbers we must beg his attention
moment" before he returns to t. to some points
in his letter which require further calculation.
Gea. ZoLLIcoFFER says:
e cannot but concur with you in opinion, that
when foreigner once becomes an American citizen,
under the sanctions of the Constitution and laws Of
the United States, he Is much entitled to the pro-
lection of the Government both at home and abroad
IS Is the native born citizen. | believe, with John
| c. Calhoun, las had occasion TO aver in my place
in Congress last Februsry,) that 'eitzsB and aisa
are c5resaive terms, and stand in conradistinction
to each other; that the effect OF naturalization is
| TO remove alienage; that to remove alienage, is
simply to put the foreigner IN The condition Of The ma
| tire born"
| TLaf "a trna docsr;na aud n bannans 70 ba Nh
same doctrine for which the Democratic party have
always consendea, not only in times when there has
been no agitation of the question, but at such times
as in 1856, when the party to which Gen. ZoLLIcOT-
FER was then attached, and perhaps he himself,
to prescribe foreign-born citizens from Office,
and did all they could to make them odious. How
ever important to foreigL-born citizen. the pro-
lection Of his rights in 9th er countries may
be, it is of infinitely less consequences to him than
the protection Of his rights here IT, in good faith,
he has become naturalized here, the first ques-
tion Of vital interest to him is, will he be protect
ed here, in the home of his adoption. 1t can afford
the immigrant bat little satisfaction to be told that
here be shall be branded "psuper and crimi-
nal" deprived of the right to hold Office, be made
to serve probation of tWenty-One years-slmost
citizen; but that, if he will only go back to the
country Of his birth, and subject himself to the
local laws Of that country, he shall be protected by
this country against the operations of those local
laws 1t is here, where he desires to live, that the
nsturalized citizen most desires protection and
| equality VIII Gen. ZoLLIcoFFER and the party
which, in 1855, he addressed as the Kaow Nothing
party, dseare that he and they are, AMI have been
in favor Of such protection ''sOeiaI and political
to the naturalzed citizen? Aud, if not is it not
cruel insult to the naturazsd citizen to say him.
We will fight creation for you if you will only go
out of the country; but here, psuper and criminsl
that you are, 20 u shall be prescribed! You don't
understand the genius of institutions you can't
learn in less than tWsnty-One years; you under
the influence of the POpe and if there is nothing
else against you, you are dangerous man, even if
your wife is Roman Catholic.
Gen. ZoLLIcOFFER continues:
'Ths foreigner, when admitted to the rights of
citizenship is required not onyt abure allegiance
10 ali foreign governments, and particularly that of
which he was g citizen subject, but to swear that
| he will support the Constitution of the United
States This requirement to support the govern
ment carries along with it corresponding obliga-
ton on the part Of the government to protect the
ton, in fact, expressly pledges the government to
| give to every citizen this protection.
And if SO bound, why is the obligation less
binding abroad than at home? II has been the
pride and boast Of our oountrymen, that in what
ever part of the globe an American citizen may be,
| the flag Of his country protects him. 1t is when
far from home in foreign land that the protecting
arm of his country has most value to the citizen.
In requiring tia nsturazed citizen to 'abjure ale
glance to all foreign Countries government be-
| lIu hnuud 70 him apaiOak al
claims by such foreign countries to that allegiance
| we have required him TO allure"
| Exactly So Gen. ZoLLIcoFFER. This argument is
ct least as old as 1855, when the Democratic party
everywhere maintained it. But you argued, in that
year. that the great mass Of foreign born citizens
were Roman Catholics, and that Rom9u Catholics
owed temporal allegiance to the Pope" from
which the naturalization oath in this country did
not absolve them. Now, how can the declarations
of the above extract be reconciled with those argu
meats Of 1855? They are directly in conflict.
Gen. ZOLLrcoFFxR is equally unfortunate in his
reference to history. He says:
alt is a well remem bered fact, that the impress
ment Of American seamen into British service, I'M
de- this same specious doctrine, that they owsd
Cice to government to vhch they subject
led to the war of 1872. Mr.. Madison repealed with
| indignation tae timid counses, such as now seem
ready to oter up nAturlzed citizens OF the United
States to the predatory claims of bslligerant Euro
pesn powers"
The case of the impressment Of seamen in 1872
is here compared with the case of nsturalzed cit
izen voluntarily returning to the place of his birth.
And yet the cases are no more alike than is the
speech of Cen ZOLLICOFFER in 1855 like his letter
in 1859. We are aware that we asserting We
remarked contrast Yet when we remind our rea-
ders that the claim of Great Britain, in 1872, was
for the right forcibly to search our ships on the
high seas and even in own waters for deserters
they will see that it bears little resemblance to
the case which Gen. ZoLLICoFFER was considering
as does the KnoWnothingism of 1856 to the profess
sions of the Opposition in 1859.
All the other cases cited by Gen. ZoLLICoFFER,
with one exception, have just little relevancy to
the he discussing as the one above noticed.
The case of NJ. ALLIBERT, referred to- We have seen
noticed in the papers, but history Of the has
been published nor can We find it in the official
documents. II it exists in such documents, we
hope Gen. ZOLLICoFFER will furnish 1t for publca-
ton. Gen. ZoLLICoFFER says that Mr.. FnLMoRE's
administration gave prompt attention to the case Of
NJ. ALLIBERT, and caused tue Government of France
to set at liberty this naturalzed American citizen"
Gous NJ efota iiv