The Yazoo Democrat. [volume] (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1858-18??, 1859-07-23
ExPATRIATIoN AND NATURALIZATION


REPATRIATION AND NATURALIZATION.
The New Orleans Picayune of the 18th inst,
has an editorial on this caption, characterized by
that papers usual terseness and chastity Of ex.
preston. But this article, like the majority Of
the original productions set forth by that excel
lent necS Journal is unfortunately, too cautious,
and fails to carry ideas which are wholly correct
to the extent they will bear, and to give them
that full application which they ought to have
In short, its argument is not sufficiently eempre-
hensive, and gives good doctrine too little scope.
While examining the above subjects, we shall
take occasion to notice the short. comings of our
New Orleans contemporary, and to show that the
very point at which its caution cells halt is the
very point on which hangs the whole gist of the
controversy it examines
Fhe policy of the United States Government is
to great extent, compelled, by the necessities
OF its peculiar form, to favor the right of man at
will, to sever his connection with and allegiance
to one Government and to assume like con
nexiOn with and allegiance to another No other
Government SO thoroughly advocates this doctrine
as ours because it is to the interest of nearly all
other Governments, except ours, to repudate this
light, at least to smother its discussion 1t ap
pears, however, that very brief thought should
convince any fair, unprecedented enquirer, that it
Is every mans natural right to expatriate him
self. This is uncOntrovertibly clear, because it
is political aS well as legal axiom, that self.
protection is the first law of nature, and should
not be interfered with. Therefore, if an indi
viduel should think any form of Government in.
sufficient for his perfect protection, it follows that
he has the right to seek another which can. It is
then the grossest folly and injustice to insist that
he owes allegiance to that which he has left, and
which Pffords him now no protection. and to that
also, which now does afford him that protection
But our Government, as well as all others. de
mands Of the foreigner seeking citizenship, to
perfect his alleg ancc before he can claim full and
equal protection. He becomes legally natural
tzed. By this act, contracti is complete between
him and his adopted Government. His faith is
hereby pledged to the Government for allegiance
and the various duties of the citizen, and the faith
OF Government is likewise hereby pledged to him
for his perfect protection in the pursuit of han
piness. Now to say that this contract can, in
deed, ought, to be violated by the adopted Gov
eminent at the very time the service of protection
is most needed by the individual Well. the
adopted citizen choOses, temporarily, to leave the
country of his adoption, and return on visit to
hrs native land. He obtains those passports from
Government, to which he is as fully entitled as
one of our native born citizens, and returns to his
father land-say Austria, for example He is no
sooner there than the mandate of supreme power
in that State impresses him into service. and be
is placed in the embarrassing position of being
forced 10 fight the battles of a country which
affords him no protection This is manifestly
abSurd-clearly injustice and oppression perpe
trated by Austria upon a legal citizen of the
United States 1t is, therefore, the manifest.
moral and political duty Of this Government To
intercede in his behalf and compel his restitution,
even at the point of the bayonet A failure so to
act, is a violation of public faith, and must do
preoate the national self-respect, the confidence
in Government, and the national moral force.
The Picayune thinks, however, that as the Gov
eminent forsaken never acknowledged the right of
expatriation and looked upon allegiance as an in
alienable right pertaining to it which could not
be broken by the citizen, therefore, the United
States, by the law of nations, has no right to in.
tsrcede forcibly to prevent or remedy the impress
ment Of foreigners who have been naturalized
under our laws, This doctrine acted upon, nee
eSsarily produces two inconsistencies. If the
Austrian Government has control ever our citi-
zens, either native born or naturalized. TO the
extent Of impressment in her borders, she must
certainly have the same right over citizens in their
homes here. If she has the right to seize upon
our citizens while travelling, and fierce them to
hght her battles, she PROFESSIONALLY has the right
to demand the delivery of Ike citizens from our
Government into her hands for ike purpose
This, Of course, would never be allowed. 1t is
also very improper In this or any other Govern
nent to mIslead an individual by promise of pro
lection IN return for allegiance and then to fail IN
rendering the q',id pro quo because, forsooth, il
has suddenly bees discovered that an abstract,
theoretical, in fact, ridiculous, anterior claim,
existed on the allegiance Of tie subject. The
Picayune thinks this Government should make it
settled point in her diplomacy to have the doc.
trine of the national right of expatriaton en-.
grated on the law Of nations. and with reference
t. that end, should have what treaties she may
hereafter conclude with the various powers of
earth. But the Picayune thinks that as this doc.
trine is not regularly defined and laid down in
the Law Of nations, II should not, therefore, be
now insisted on by this Government. Here is pre-
C'reiy tue chief points of difference between the
PicaJ une and justice. The United States should
ias'st ~ on thSiight as plain, natural and Just.