Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-06-16

native citizens in whatever quarter of the
globe they may rightfully be. he does assert
that it is not the duty of the government to
protect naturalised citizens on their native
soil against the claims ofallegiance put forth
by the local government. He makes a most
serious discrimination against naturalized cit
liens which the law does not make. He de-
MES their claim to protection although their
allegiance is complete and undisputed. He
tramples in the name of the government
on the great compact of naturalization.
His position renders naturalization cheat
and swindle. 1t is deliberate betrayal Of
the faith of the government.
1t therefore disbonors the nation as deeply
as it wrongs the foreign-born citizen. 1t is to-
tally irreconcilable with national self-respect
One of the leading conditions of naturaliza-
ton in this country is the renunciation of all
allegiance to every foreign power and espe-
cially the power of which the applicant was
formerly citizen or subject. To withhold
protection from naturalZed citizens when
they visit their native countries on the ground
that they still owe the allegiance which we
have required them solemnly to renounce is
a manifest and cowardly absurdity. The the
DRY or scheme of naturalization in this couu-
try assumes the right of expatriation. In de-
handing that the alien shall renounce his al
legiance to his native country as one of the
conditions of his admission to citizenship in
our own, we clearly take for granted his right
to do so. Otherwise the entire fabric of our
system of naturalization would rest on an adj
mitted impossibility. If, however, the born
subject of foreign power has right to re-
nounce his allegiance and clothe himself with
the citizenship OF this country, that power of
course has no right to claim his allegiance
after he shall have thus formally transferred
it. To deny this is to assert that it is right
for government to compel born subject to
do what it is right for born subject not to
do which is a ridiculous contradiction. 1t is
to affirm that a person may owe supreme
allegiance to two different countries at the
same time. But if the native government of
a naturalized citizen has no just claim to his
allegiance. how can we acquiesce tamely in
the enforcement of such a claim without
bringing American ClLlZensnlp lnIO ulsSIdCe
and American sovereignty into contempt?
We plainly cannot. Yet this is precisely the
step to which Secretary Cass has pledged
the government. Let the people reflect upon
it.
A terrible cutlery on behalfof the foreigner
was made by Secretary Cass's party few
years ago when the Know Nothings proposed
to extend some what the conditions of
naturalization. 1t was thought or at all
events pronounced an awful thing to insist
that foreigners should remain seven or nine
Or twenty years in the country before they
put on the glorious panoply of American
citizenship; but here is a doctrine, asserted
by the Foreign Secretary of a Democratic
Administration, which, as regards naturalized
citizens, renders that panOply vulnerable TO
every petty assault of the despots of the Old
World, converts naturalization into a cruel
juggle, remands the fOreign-born citizen
privileges of citizenship to the condition of a
perpetual alien, and does it all at most
notifying and appalling sacrifice of national
spirit, without, so far as we have seen or
heard. awakening solitary protest from the
bOasted champions of the foreigner in the
midst of u.s. Where sleep the thunders of the
Democracy? Where curdles their late impetu-
GUS and rushing compassion for the foreigner?