Part 17

KNOW NOTHING (or AMERICAN) PARTY, in United States history, a political party of great importance in the decade before 1860. Its principle was political proscription of naturalized citizens and of Roman Catholics. Distrust of alien immigrants, because of presumptive attachment to European institutions, has always been more or less widely diffused, and race antagonisms have been recurrently of political moment; while anti-Catholic sentiment went back to colonial sectarianism. These were the elements of the political "nativism"--i.e. hostility to foreign influence in politics--of 1830-1860. In these years Irish immigration became increasingly preponderant; and that of Catholics was even more so. The geographical segregation and the clannishness of foreign voters in the cities gave them a power that Whigs and Democrats alike (the latter more successfully) strove to control, to the great aggravation of naturalization and election frauds. "No one can deny that ignorant foreign suffrage had grown to be an evil of immense proportions" (J. F. Rhodes). In labour disputes, political feuds and social clannishness, the alien elements--especially the Irish and German--displayed their power, and at times gave offence by their hostile criticism of American institutions.[1] In immigration centres like Boston, Philadelphia and New York, the Catholic Church, very largely foreign in membership and proclaiming a foreign allegiance of disputed extent, was really "the symbol and strength of foreign influence" (Scisco); many regarded it as a transplanted foreign institution, un-American in organization and ideas.[2] Thus it became involved in politics. The decade 1830-1840 was marked by anti-Catholic (anti-Irish) riots in various cities and by party organization of nativists in many places in local elections. Thus arose the American-Republican (later the Native-American) Party, whose national career begun practically in 1845, and which in Louisiana in 1841 first received a state organization. New York City in 1844 and Boston in 1845 were carried by the nativists, but their success was due to Whig support, which was not continued,[3] and the national organization was by 1847--in which year it endorsed the Whig nominee for the presidency--practically dead. Though some Whig leaders had strong nativist leanings, and though the party secured a few representatives in Congress, it accomplished little at this time in national politics. In the early 'fifties nativism was revivified by an unparalleled inflow of aliens. Catholics, moreover, had combated the Native-Americans defiantly. In 1852 both Whigs and Democrats were forced to defend their presidential nominees against charges of anti-Catholic sentiment. In 1853-1854 there was a wide-spread "anti-popery" propaganda and riots against Catholics in various cities. Meanwhile the Know Nothing Party had sprung from nativist secret societies, whose relations remain obscure.[4] Its organization was secret; and hence its name--for a member, when interrogated, always answered that he knew nothing about it. Selecting candidates secretly from among those nominated by the other parties, and giving them no public endorsement, the Know Nothings, as soon as they gained the balance of power, could shatter at will Whig and Democratic calculations. Their power was evident by 1852--from which time, accordingly, "Know Nothingism" is most properly dated. The charges they brought against naturalization abuses were only too well founded; and those against election frauds not less so--though, unfortunately, the Know Nothings themselves followed scandalous election methods in some cities. The proposed proscription of the foreign-born knew no exceptions: many wished never to concede to them all the rights of natives, nor to their children unless educated in the public schools. As for Catholics, the real animus of Know Nothingism was against _political_ Romanism; therefore, secondarily, against papal allegiance and episcopal church administration (in place of administration by lay trustees, as was earlier common practice in the United States); and, primarily, against public aid to Catholic schools, and the alleged greed (i.e. the power and success) of the Irish in politics. The times were propitious for the success of an aggressive third party; for the Whigs were broken by the death of Clay and Webster and the crushing defeat of 1852, and both the Whig and Democratic parties were disintegrating on the slavery issue. But the Know Nothings lacked aggression. In entering national politics the party abandoned its mysteries, without making compensatory gains; when it was compelled to publish a platform of principles, factions arose in its ranks; moreover, to draw recruits the faster from Whigs and Democrats, it "straddled" the slavery question, and this, although a temporary success, ultimately meant ruin. In 1854, however, Know Nothing gains were remarkable.[5] Thereafter the organization spread like wildfire in the South, in which section there were almost no aliens, and the Whig dissolution was far advanced. The Virginia election of May 1855 proved conclusively, however, that Know Nothingism was no stronger against the Democrats than was the Whig party it had absorbed; it was the same organization under a new name. In the North it was even clearer that slavery must be faced. Know Nothing evasion probably helped the South,[6] but neither Republicans nor Democrats would endure the evasion; Douglas and Seward, and later (1855-1856) their parties, denounced it. In the North-West the Know Nothings were swept into the anti-slavery movement in 1854 without retaining their organization. In the state campaigns of 1855 professions were measured to the latitude. The national platform of 1856 (adopted by a secret grand council), besides including anti-alien and anti-Catholic planks, offered sops to the North, the South and the "doughfaces" on the slavery issue. Millard Fillmore was nominated for the presidency. The anti-slavery delegates of eight Northern states bolted the convention, and eight months later the Republican wave swept the Know Nothings out of the North.[7] The national field being thus lost, the state councils became supreme, and local opportunism fostered variation and weakness. By 1859 the party was confined almost entirely to the border states. The Constitutional Union--the "Do Nothing"--Party of 1860 was mainly composed of Know Nothing remnants.[8] The year 1860 practically marked, also, the disappearance of the party as a local power.[9]

Except in city politics nativism had no vitality; in state and national politics it really had no excuse. Race antipathies gave it local cohesive power in the North; various causes, already mentioned, advanced it in the South; and as a device to win offices it was of wide-spread attraction. Its only real contribution to government was the proof that nativism is not Americanism. Public opinion has never accepted its estimate of the alien nor of Catholic citizens. Some of its anti-Church principles, however--as the non-support of denominational schools--have been generally accepted; others--as the refusal to exclude the (Protestant) Bible from public schools--have been generally rejected; others--as the taxation of all Church property--remain disputed.

See L. D. Scisco, _Political Nativism in New York State_ (doctoral thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1901); L. F. Schmeckebier, _Know Nothing Party in Maryland_ (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1899); G. H. Haynes, "A Know Nothing Legislature" (Mass., 1855), in _American Historical Assoc. Report_, pt. 1 (1896); J. B. McMaster, _With the Fathers_, including "The Riotous Career of the Know Nothings" (New York, 1896); H. F. Desmond, _The Know Nothing Party_ (Washington, 1905).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] E.g. for some extraordinary "reform" programmes among German immigrants see Schmeckebier (as below), pp. 48-50.

[2] "The actual offence of the Catholic Church was its non-conformity to American methods of church administration and popular education" (Scisco).

[3] The Whigs bargained aid in New York city for "American" support in the state, and charged that the latter was not given. Millard Fillmore attributed the Whig loss of the state (see LIBERTY PARTY) to the disaffection of Catholic Whigs angered by the alliance with the nativists.

[4] The Order of United Americans and the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, established in New York respectively in 1845 and 1850, were the most important sources of its membership.

[5] This year "American Party" became the official name. Its strength in Congress was almost thirty-fold that of 1852. It elected governors, legislatures, or both, in four New England states, and in Maryland, Kentucky and California; minor officers elsewhere; and almost won six Southern states.

[6] For it delayed anti-slavery organization in the North, and presumably discouraged immigration, which was a source of strength to the North rather than to the South.

[7] They carried only Maryland. The popular vote in the North was under one-seventh, in the South above three-sevenths, of the total vote cast.

[8] Note the presidential vote. Seward's loss of the Republican nomination was partly due to Know Nothing hostility.

[9] Its firmest hold was in Maryland. Its rule in Baltimore (1854-1860) was marked by disgraceful riots and abuses.

KNOX, HENRY (1750-1806), American general, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, of Scottish-Irish parentage, on the 25th of July 1750. He was prominent in the colonial militia and tried to keep the Boston crowd and the British soldiers from the clash known as the Boston massacre (1770). In 1771 he opened the "London Book-Store" in Boston. He had read much of tactics and strategy, joined the American army at the outbreak of the War of Independence, and fought at Bunker Hill, planned the defences of the camps of the army before Boston, and brought from Lake George and border forts much-needed artillery. At Trenton he crossed the river before the main body, and in the attack rendered such good service that he was made brigadier-general and chief of artillery in the Continental army on the following day. He was present at Princeton; was chiefly responsible for the mistake in attacking the "Chew House" at Germantown; urged New York as the objective of the campaign of 1778; served with efficiency at Monmouth and at Yorktown; and after the surrender of Cornwallis was promoted major-general, and served as a commissioner on the exchange of prisoners. His services throughout the war were of great value to the American cause; he was one of General Washington's most trusted advisers, and he brought the artillery to a high degree of efficiency. From December 1783 until June 1784 he was the senior officer of the United States army. In April 1783 he had drafted a scheme of a society to be formed by the American officers and the French officers who had served in America during the war, and to be called the "Cincinnati"; of this society he was the first secretary-general (1783-1799) and in 1805 became vice-president-general. In 1785-1794 Knox was secretary of war, being the first man to hold this position after the organization of the Federal government in 1789. He urged ineffectually a national militia system, to enroll all citizens over 18 and under 60 in the "advanced corps," the "main corps" or the "reserve," and for this and his close friendship with Washington was bitterly assailed by the Republicans. In 1793 he had begun to build his house, Montpelier, at Thomaston, Maine, where he speculated unsuccessfully in the holdings of the Eastern Land Association; and he lived there until his death on the 25th of October 1806.

See F. S. Drake, _Memoir of General Henry Knox_ (Boston, 1873); and Noah Brooks, _Henry Knox_ (New York, 1900) in the "American Men of Energy" series.

KNOX, JOHN (c. 1505-1572), Scottish reformer and historian. Of his early life very little is certainly known, in spite of the fact that his _History of the Reformation_ and his private letters, especially the latter, are often vividly autobiographical. Even the year of his birth, usually given as 1505, is matter of dispute. Beza, in his _Icones_, published in 1580, makes it 1515; Sir Peter Young (tutor to James VI. of Scotland), writing to Beza from Edinburgh in 1579, says 1513; and a strong case has been made out for holding that the generally accepted date is due to an error in transcription (see Dr Hay Fleming in the _Bookman_, Sept. 1905). But Knox seems to have been reticent about his early life, even to his contemporaries. What is known is that he was a son of William Knox, who lived in or near the town of Haddington, that his mother's name was Sinclair, and that his forefathers on both sides had fought under the banner of the Bothwells. William Knox was "simple," not "gentle"--perhaps a prosperous East Lothian peasant. But he sent his son John to school (no doubt the well-known grammar school of Haddington), and thereafter to the university, where, like his contemporary George Buchanan, he sat "at the feet" of John Major. Major was a native of Haddington, who had recently returned to Scotland from Paris with a great academical reputation. He retained to the last, as his _History of Greater Britain_ shows, the repugnance characteristic of the university of Paris to the tyranny of kings and nobles; but like it, he was now alarmed by the revolt of Luther, and ceased to urge its ancient protest against the supremacy of the pope. He exchanged his "regency" or professorship in Glasgow University for one in that of St Andrews in 1523. If Knox's college time was later than that date (as it must have been, if he was born near 1515), it was no doubt spent, as Beza narrates, at St Andrews, and probably exclusively there. But in Major's last Glasgow session a "Joannes Knox" (not an uncommon name, however, at that time in the west of Scotland) matriculated there; and if this were the future reformer, he may thereafter either have followed his master to St Andrews or returned from Glasgow straight to Haddington. But till twenty years after that date his career has not been again traced. Then he reappears in his native district as a priest without a university degree (Sir John Knox) and a notary of the diocese of St Andrews. In 1543 he certainly signed himself "minister of the sacred altar" under the archbishop of St Andrews. But in 1546 he was carrying a two-handed sword in defence of the reformer George Wishart, on the day when the latter was arrested by the archbishop's order. Knox would have resisted, though the arrest was by his feudal superior, Lord Bothwell; but Wishart himself commanded his submission, with the words "One is sufficient for a sacrifice," and was handed over for trial at St Andrews. And next year the archbishop himself had been murdered, and Knox was preaching in St Andrews a fully developed Protestantism.

Knox gives us no information as to how this startling change in himself was brought about. During those twenty years Scotland had been slowly tending to freedom in religious profession, and to friendship with England rather than with France. The Scottish hierarchy, by this time corrupt and even profligate, saw the twofold danger and met it firmly. James V., the "Commons' King" had put himself into the hands of the Beatons, who in 1528 burned Patrick Hamilton. On James's death there was a slight reaction, but the cardinal-archbishop took possession of the weak regent Arran, and in 1546 burned George Wishart. England had by this time rejected the pope's supremacy. In Scotland by a recent statute it was death even to argue against it; and Knox after Wishart's execution was fleeing from place to place, when, hearing that certain gentlemen of Fife had slain the cardinal and were in possession of his castle of St Andrews, he gladly joined himself to them. In St Andrews he taught "John's Gospel" and a certain catechism--probably that which Wishart had got from "Helvetia" and translated; but his teaching was supposed to be private and tutorial and for the benefit of his friends' "bairns." The men about him however--among them Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, "Lyon King" and poet--saw his capacity for greater things, and, on his at first refusing "to run where God had not called him," planned a solemn appeal to Knox from the pulpit to accept "the public office and charge of preaching." At the close of it the speaker (in Knox's own narrative) "said to those that were present, 'Was not this your charge to me? And do ye not approve this vocation?' They answered, 'It was, and we approve it.' Whereat the said Johnne, abashed, burst forth in most abundant tears and withdrew himself to his chamber," remaining there in "heaviness" for days, until he came forth resolved and prepared. Knox is probably not wrong in regarding this strange incident as the spring of his own public life. The St Andrews invitation was really one to danger and death; John Rough, who spoke it, died a few years after in the flames at Smithfield. But it was a call which many in that ardent dawn were ready to accept, and it had now at length found, or made, a statesman and leader of men. For what to the others was chiefly a promise of personal salvation became for the indomitable will of Knox an assurance also of victory, even in this world, over embattled forces of ancient wrong. It is certain at least that from this date he never changed and scarcely even varied his public course. And looking back upon that course afterwards, he records with much complacency how his earliest St Andrews sermon built up a whole fabric of aggressive Protestantism upon Puritan theory, so that his startled hearers muttered, "Others sned (snipped) the branches; this man strikes at the root."

Meantime the system attacked was safe for other thirteen years. In June 1547 St Andrews yielded to the French fleet, and the prisoners, including Knox, were thrown into the galleys on the Loire, to remain in irons and under the lash for at least nineteen months. Released at last (apparently through the influence of the young English king, Edward VI.), Knox was appointed one of the licensed preachers of the new faith for England, and stationed in the great garrison of Berwick, and afterwards at Newcastle. In 1551 he seems to have been made a royal chaplain; in 1552 he was certainly offered an English bishopric, which he declined; and during most of this year he used his influence, as preacher at court and in London, to make the new English settlement more Protestant. To him at least is due the Prayer-book rubric which explains that, when kneeling at the sacrament is ordered, "no adoration is intended or ought to be done." While in Northumberland Knox had been betrothed to Margaret Bowes, one of the fifteen children of Richard Bowes, the captain of Norham Castle. Her mother, Elizabeth, co-heiress of Aske in Yorkshire, was the earliest of that little band of women-friends whose correspondence with Knox on religious matters throws an unexpected light on his discriminating tenderness of heart. But now Mary Tudor succeeded her brother, and Knox in March 1554 escaped into five years' exile abroad, leaving Mrs. Bowes a fine treatise on "Affliction," and sending back to England two editions of a more acrid "Faithful Admonition" on the crisis there. He first drifted to Frankfort, where the English congregation divided as English Protestants have always done, and the party opposed to Knox got rid of him at last by a complaint to the authorities of treason against the emperor Charles V. as well as Philip and Mary. At Geneva he found a more congenial pastorate. Christopher Goodman (c. 1520-1603) and he, with other exiles, began there the Puritan tradition, and prepared the earlier English version of the Bible, "the household book of the English-speaking nations" during the great age of Elizabeth. Here, and afterwards at Dieppe (where he preached in French), Knox kept in communication with the other Reformers, studied Greek and Hebrew in the interest of theology, and having brought his wife and her mother from England in 1555 lived for years a peaceful life.