From Perth Amboy Evening News, November 4, 1916
On the eve of what pundits and politicians alike are calling one of the most important elections of our time, candidates are feverishly making their last minute pitch to entice any remaining undecided voters. Of the many issues being discussed this cycle, Immigration is one of the most important and polarizing.
Having read through numerous newspapers of old during the course of our work at the NJDNP office, it is clear to us that immigration is just as important today as it was 176 years ago. While researching Walt Whitman for an upcoming blog entry, we came upon an editorial in the The New York Aurora titled, Defining “Our Position.” According to the Whitman Archives, this editorial is attributed to the political poet himself. (Whitman was announced as the editor of The Aurora on March 28, 1842) In the editorial, Whitman responds to a letter written to the newspaper by a former New York “occupant of a high official station under the general government.” The letter gives a bold critique of The Aurora’s stance on immigration and Whitman’s equally bold response may fly in the face of your expectations.
The entire text of the editorial can be found below, and more information about this editorial can be found on the Walt Whitman Archive:
A link to a scan of the original column can be found here:
“Defining ‘Our Position.’
From one of the best known and most respectable citizens of New York—one who, as formerly occupant of a high official station under the general government, and distinguished no less for his abilities in literature and science, has identified himself with the first men of the western world—we yesterday received a note somewhat taking us to task for the course this paper has lately pursued, and offering certain suggestions for our future conduct. Were we permitted to give the name of our correspondent, our readers would perceive with what propriety we can depart in this instance from our general course, and “give explanations.” The writer of the letter says:—
“Notwithstanding that I, in common with nearly all whom I have conversed with upon the matter, cannot deny the evidently patriotic motives, the eloquence, and the unflinching courage, which characterise your attacks on what you have enmity toward—yet there appears a kind of vindictiveness, a want of charity, a disposition to ultraism,1 which must be highly offensive to persons of correct views. You have loaded those whom you dislike with abuse and opprobrium to a degree that I do not recollect ever to have seen equaled before; the fiercest invective, and the hottest hate can hardly lead you farther than you have already gone. I question whether the English language affords superlatives more superlative than you have plied on, mountain high, upon the heads of certain individuals whose conduct you disapprove.
“And most decidedly I do condemn your stand against FOREIGNERS. That body, like all that is human, have their demerits, undoubtedly; but it is too late in the day to get up a crusade against them. You might as well deprive the tree of its sap, as America of its influx of foreign emigrants.”
Our reply to the above will be very brief. And we shall answer first, that which our respected correspondent has complained of last.
The motives of the Aurora, in some of its recent steps, have been much misunderstood. We have no antipathy or bigoted ill to foreigners. God forbid! Our love is capacious enough, and our arms wide enough, to encircle all men, whether they have birth in our glorious republic, the monarchies of Europe, or the hot deserts of Africa—whatever be their origin or native land. Our mind is not one of that narrow description which confines its good will by a shore or a boundary line; we look upon all human beings as brethren, entitled all to our regard, our good offices, the protection of government, and the enjoyment of freedom.
Yet we cannot shut out eyes to the painful truth that this nation—all vigorous in the bloom of youth, and, like youth, susceptible to a lasting stamp from chance impressions—is in danger of being deterred from a proud and lofty path, by influences of an anti-American tendency spread through its width and breadth, and made more plenty by every packet and steam ship that arrives in our docks from abroad.2 We possess in this republic the advantages and the capacities, for evolving the Great Problem—the problem of how far Man, the masterpiece of cunningest Omniscience, can have his nature perfected by himself, and can be trusted to govern himself. We possess the chance of spreading to the gaze of the world, the glorious spectacle of a continent peopled by freemen—freemen, not as those of vaunted Rome, and voluptuous Venice—not free in grades—but free men in a reality far beyond even what our nation now enjoys.3 We would that all the taint of time defiled custom—all the poisonous atmosphere of European philosophy—all the fallacious glitter of a literature which, being under the patronage of courts and princes and haughty church, is not fitted for our beloved America—all the aristocratic notions, interwoven so closely with social customs, as to be almost ineradicable—we would that all this might have no sway in the land. These things are not for such as we. A higher and holier destiny, a more worthy mission, we sincerely hope, belong to us.
And now the public can see what kind of Americanism will characterize the Aurora. We glory in such principles; we would rather use our strength in diffusing them, than, like some of our contemporaries, reap the harvest of basely pandering to error, and feeding vanity. There are among the conductors of our newspapers too many
“dastard sycophants and jesters—
Reptiles who lay their bellies in the dust,
Before the frown of majesty.”4
He who chalks out the campaign for the Aurora, is not of them.
Our correspondent also takes it ill that some of our editorials show “the fiercest invective, and the hottest hate.” It would be affectation, were we to pretend not to understand what the instances alluded to. We are well aware that we used strong language; we meant to. Though professing to be by no means of excitable temperament—we are ever roused to the utmost, by any such conduct as this of the dastardly Hughes,5 and his kindred fanatical demagogues. The farthest stretch of condemnation cannot go too far against any proceedings which put in jeopardy the soundness and purity of the elective franchise.6
We never intend to mince matters—to stop for honeyed words—to crust the wholesome doses we administer, with sugar—to be polite unto filthy vice—to stand on ceremony with a traitor—or treat a scoundrel with dainty punctilio.”7
(Contributed by Giovanna Ligato-Pugliese and Jacob Paul)