Talk:Know Nothing

Center-left?

How can the KNs be referred to as center-left? Perhaps consider removing the political position entirely since they don't fall into a category we would understand in modern times. 142.255.72.79 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

They shouldn't be. Per prior discussions on this page modern left–right alignment of political positions doesn't map to U.S. politics of the 1850s/1860s. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Anti-semitism

Currently, the article reads: "Know Nothings are occasionally referred to as an antisemitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and their religious bigotry."

I read the cited source, and it does not say this at all.

It also reads that the party was not "openly hostile towards Jews", which misleadingly suggests that they were hostile to Jews in private. This is also not in the source, and is also rather patently absurd, considering that the leader of the party was a Jewish congressman.

I am grateful to @Tcr25 for reverting several of @WikiCleanerMan's NPOV-violating edits, but I still think the revision I made earlier is superior, as it accurately reflects information from the cited sources, while the current version does not. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, there seems to be a contradiction in the current revision of the article:

"The movement was openly not hostile towards Jews because its members and supporters believed that Jews did not allow "their religious feelings to interfere with their political views." The Know Nothing Party, prioritizing a zealous disdain for Irish Catholic immigrants, reportedly "had nothing to say about Jews", according to historian Hasia Diner."

It seems to me that either the Know-Nothings proposed that Jews did not allow their religious feelings to interfere with their political views, or that they had nothing to say about them. I don't see how both propositions can be true.

Furthermore, Anbinder, in Nativism and Slavery, on p. 120, a source that is currently used in this article for other statements, says that the Know-Nothings considered the Jewish religion somewhat "repugnant", but approved of it to the extent that it was an inherently Republican religion, asserting that Jews were in fact "the first Republican people in the world." (something I quoted from the book in one of my revisions, but which for some reason was removed by @WikiCleanerMan as "NPOV-violating") This statement is mutually-exclusive towards the idea that they "had nothing to say about Jews," creating a contradiction. The Know-Nothings can't have both praised Jews, and have had nothing to say about them at the same time. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are two things at play here. First, the "occasionally referred to as an antisemitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and their religious bigotry" line is pulling from authors seeing the KNs as the root of later nativist parties/movements in the U.S. that were explicitly antisemitic. Second, the KNs and their positions varied significantly over time and in different states. Lewis Charles Levin, who was Jewish, was a KN leader in the 1840s in Pennsylvania, but Henry Wilson was a prominent face in the party in the 1850s in Massachusetts. Although it's not in his article here, per Ruchames (1952; JSTOR 43057515), Wilson mixed antisemitic tropes into his speeches. Which represents the KN mainstream more: Levin or Wilson? Or is it indicative of a change in the party? Or does it show that antisemitism may not have been a party position, but that some of its members held antisemitic views and others didn't?

I don't take from "was not openly hostile" the implication that they were privately hostile, but that the party did not include antisemitic planks in its platform, despite the views of some of its members. Similarly the "nothing to say", in my reading, would mean nothing in their party platforms; it doesn't speak to the personal opinions of various party members, which are likely to cover a range of possibilities. Looking at History of antisemitism in the United States, it seems antisemitic actions and statements were uncommon before the Civil War and Reconstruction, in part because of the relatively small size of the Jewish community in the country. (The same article notes, however, that this view is being reconsidered.)

I'm sure the phrasing could be improved, but the main point should probably be that the KNs, as a party, did not include antisemitic planks in its party platforms. Going more broadly, despite the quotes Anbinder took from two 1855 newspaper articles or columns, seems to ascribe more to the party's positions than is supported by the sources. It was clearly anti-Catholic (with some exceptions, like in New Orleans) with a focus on Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and elsewhere; however, unlike the nativists of the late 1800s/early 1900s, when Jewish immigration was at a much higher level, the KNs (with a few exceptions) didn't seem to have have much to say about Jews. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, for the most part. My main points of disagreement at the moment would be over two things. One, "openly hostile". If I were to describe the British Conservative Party or Israeli Labor Party as "not openly hostile towards Jews" it would be equally true, but a non-sequitur, if not misleading. Two, it's still not clear who exactly has accused the Know-Nothings of antisemitism. I haven't been able to find it in the sources. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I think the best course would be to move the paragraph from the lead section into the body of the article (per MOS:LEAD), but I'm not seeing a place where it fits smoothly or logically. That there are academic sources that discuss KNs attitudes towards Jews and Judaism, indicates that its at least somewhat relevant. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it's the best place for it, but move the graf to "Underlying issues" and reworked slightly. I was going to add mention of Wilson (as noted above), but his antisemitic comments came primarily in the 1860s by which time he'd left the KNs and was in the Senate as a Republican. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's much better. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2023 (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)