The French-Canadian 'Alien In Our Midst': Nativism vs. Nationality in 20th c. America

In previous posts I discussed from a French North American perspective the early 20th c. eugenicist activities of Charles Davenport and the “master race” theories of Madison Grant.

Grant’s best-known book is The Passing Of The Great Race, which Hitler called his “bible,” and which was an influence on U.S. legislation in the 1920s restricting immigration. In 1930, Grant and co-author Charles Stewart Davison brought forth a volume of essays on the theme of immigration entitled The Alien In Our Midst or Selling Our Birthright For a Mess of Industrial Pottage.

Sandwiched between stirring quotations from the Founding Fathers, these essays bear such titles as The Control of Trends in the Racial Composition of the American People, The Howl for Cheap Mexican Labor, and The Permanent Menace From Europe (of Slavic and Jewish emigration).

Among these offerings appears an essay called The French-Canadian Invasion by Robert C. Dexter, Ph.D, dealing with Franco-Americans in New England. Dexter’s is among the book’s milder chapters tucked amid eugenicist screeds. Despite his measured tone, Dexter declares that the New England Franco-Americans of his day, “have certain peculiar characteristics which tend to make them far more difficult of assimilation” than other immigrant groups. (71)*

In his discussion of these “peculiar characteristics” Dexter sounds familiar themes such as the proximity of the Franco-American’s Québec homeland (he omits to mention the Acadian homeland of many Franco-Americans) and the famed “fecundity of the race.” He also revives a moderate form of the image popular in the 1880s and 1890s of a French-Canadian horde poised to dominate the northeastern States.

Dexter also offers this accurate observation:

English-speaking Canada has herself never assimilated the French-Canadians.They have always remained a separate group, speaking their own language and retaining their own culture and having succeeded in withstanding whatever pressure toward cultural unity there has been in the Dominion they desire to remain a separate group in the United States. (71f)

The writer quotes a Franco-American journalist and leading light of the late 19th c., Ferdinand Gagnon:

"Allegiance to a power does not change the origin of a subject or of a citizen; it only changes his political condition. In taking the oath of fidelity to the Constitution of the United States nothing changes in my life…What does take place then? There is simply concluded a political contract  which obliges me to observe the laws of the country …to defend its flag and to work for the greater prosperity of the nation … Nothing else passes between my conscience and my oath of allegiance." (74)

The history of French North America created a context for Gagnon to observe a distinction between one’s “origin” and one’s “country.” Gagnon believes that one’s nation may be distinct from the political entity to which one pledges allegiance, and his words to this effect echo the sentiment of an Acadien after 1713 or a Canadien after 1763. Gagnon writes of the allegiance “of a subject or of a citizen,” the first term applying to Canada and the second to the USA. The nation may endure in more than one “political condition.”

Page from Grant's and Davison's
The Alien In Our Midst

Since the 18th c., the French North Americans have been nations without a state. In emphasizing the continuity of national identity, in whatever political context it might inhabit, Gagnon’s generation retained the traditional survivance ideology of its forebears.

Gagnon’s text raises the question of what remains of participation in a modern Constitutional State, if we subtract adherence to the law, productive participation in the economy and, Gagnon adds, defense of its flag? What more could any State expect of a citizen? In Gagnon’s terms, what should “pass between a conscience and an oath of allegiance”?

But the nativists, on the pattern of Grant and Dexter, want more than mere participation, however energetic or ardent, in the politics, economics, and defense of the State. They want the immigrant to wish to exhibit the cultural cues that mirror the assimilationist’s image of an essential American.

The assimilationist wants not only the immigrant’s body but also the soul. It is necessary for the immigrant not only to act like an American, but also to think like an American, to be culturally American, whatever that might mean.

When we use the word culture we must acknowledge the breadth we are encompassing. Culture means not only language, religion, diet, the arts, and other equally obvious manifestations, but also such day to day matters as the volume with which one speaks; how close one stands to other people in casual interactions; how one responds in public meetings or performances; how (or whether) one negotiates; the rhythm of conversation; relationship to work; how one arranges one’s home and surroundings; the degree of privacy or publicity around religious expression. Culture includes all of this.

The Madison Grants hold the view that cultures, in this broadest sense, are arranged in a hierarchy determined by heredity. The immigrant, no matter how hard he or she tries to assimilate to the dominant culture, will never attain to membership in Grant’s “master race.” The specimen of an "inferior" origin may aspire to the manners and mores of his or her “betters,” but their best efforts must fall short if Grant’s eugenicist theories are to hold.

In the final paragraphs of his essay, Dexter gives his prescription for turning back the “French-Canadian invasion” of New England: forced assimilation of the generations born in the USA by means of the public schools. Dexter prefers, in fact, that children be required to attend public schools where English is the language of instruction.

He would require also, contrary to the traditions of New England, regulation of schools at the state level as a means of circumventing Franco-American control of school boards in municipalities where they comprise the majority.

Dexter mentions the strong interest of the Franco-Americans in educational policy since both they and Dexter recognize that schools are the incubators of the spirit. If assimilation includes the internal as well as the external, the private as well as the public, then formation is the key, and the schools must be the first line of defense against cultural “invasion.”

This bone of contention remains today: is there a cultural requirement for citizenship in a Constitutional State? Or is it, as Gagnon held, in toto a product of a social contract, a transaction entailing certain rights and related responsibilities and nothing more?

Reading Grant’s and Davison’s treatment of “the alien in our midst” it is startling how little the terms of this debate have changed in the better part of a century.

* Madison Grant and Charles Stewart Davison, The Alien In Our Midst or Selling Our Birthright For a Mess of Industrial Pottage (New York: Galton, 1930). Parenthetical page numbers refer to this book.

Naturalization and Leadership in the Franco-American Community at Brunswick, Maine

General histories of the Franco-American communities in New England have claimed that the immigrants resisted naturalization. The usual reasons cited include a desire to avoid paying taxes to two governments and to evade service in the American military. The Franco-American community at Brunswick, Maine, however, does not seem to have been troubled by such concerns. Consider this item from the August 22, 1884 edition of the local newspaper, the Brunswick Telegraph, page 3:

Meeting of the French-Canadians. A meeting of French-Canadians was held in the Court Room, Town Hall, Monday evening, Joseph Dufresne being elected temporary chairman, and Louis Trudeau, sect'y. Henry Ragot addressed the meeting in French, upon topics in which the people were interested, the result of which was the formation of a permanent organization. President, Noel Vandall; Secretary, Louis Trudeau; Vice Presidents, Exavier Payment, Ermenigle Coulombe, Telesphore LaPoint, Jos. Machaud, Frank Maturin, Jos. Dionne, and Henry Ragot, Marshall.

The subject of naturalization was discussed, the question being, shall the French take out naturalization papers or remain foreigners? It was unanimously decided to naturalize, and 53 were found to be ready for naturalization; others will be naturalized when they become eligible. It was also decided that all possible means of information should be resorted to, to gain political information. (Note: Names spelled as they appear in the original article.)

The article shows the communal, tight-knit character of the Franco-American group in Brunswick. Although some Brunswick Franco-Americans had attained U.S. citizenship prior to the meeting, the issue of naturalization was not decided on an individual basis. It was deemed a vital interest of the Franco-American community as a whole and the community met in a body to discuss it. A consensus was reached and a "permanent organization" formed.

Who were the leaders mentioned in the article? Since many of the Brunswick Franco-Americans were from the village and county of L'Islet on the south bank of the Saint Lawrence does it then follow that the majority of the leaders were from this location? Were these leaders already naturalized and therefore able to help others to achieve citizenship?

I researched these leaders using Naturalization Petitions and checked the information there against the Drouin Institute microfilm of the Québec parish registers. Where there is a discrepancy between the date of birth given on the naturalization petition and what I discovered in the parish registers I have placed the date found in the latter in parentheses with the parish name and the number of the baptismal record.

• Noel Vandal, President: b. Sorel, 1845 (December 25, 1844, Saint-Pierre-de-Sorel, B. 323). Arrived in USA: April 1, 1860. His initial "port of arrival" in the USA was the state of Rhode Island. The 1880 census corroborates that Noel and his wife had at least one child born in the Union's smallest state. He was naturalized on April 4, 1876. No witnesses are listed with his naturalization petition.

• Louis Trudeau, Secretary: b. Saint-Constant, County of Laprairie, October 1, 1849. Arrived in USA: November 16, 1866, Brunswick. Naturalized: September 10, 1886. Witnesses: Alexis St-Marie, Casimir Deshetre, and Henri Ragot of Brunswick. 

• François-Xavier Paiement ("Exavier Payment"), Vice President, b. Roxton Falls, Shefford County, June 6, 1857. Arrived in USA: March 1, 1869, Brunswick. Naturalized: August 23, 1882. Witnesses: L. (Louis) Normand and P.F. Root (Philibert Racine, alias Philip F. Root). 
• Herminigilde Coulombe ("Ermenigle Coulombe"), Vice President, b. L'Islet, September 4, 1858 (September 4, 1857, Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (L'Islet), B. 143). Arrived in USA: June 15, 1871, provides no place of entry. Naturalized: August 28, 1880. Witnesses: Joseph Dionne and Thomas Gagné of Brunswick.

• Telesphore Lapointe ("Lapoint"), Vice President, b. Kamouraska, March 25, 1857 (March 26, 1858, Saint-Louis-de-Kamouraska, B. 30). Arrived in USA: March 1, 1871, Brunswick. Naturalized: September 11, 1886. Witnesses: Philip F. Root and Andrew Libby (André L’Abbé).

• Joseph Michaud ("Machaud"), Vice President, gave his place of birth as "Quebec." This could mean either a parish somewhere in the province or perhaps he means the city of Québec. Date of birth: November 19, 1851. Arrived in USA: April 16, 1869, Brunswick. Naturalized: August 28, 1880. Witnesses: Joseph Dionne and Andrew Libby.

• François-Xavier Mathurin ("Frank Maturin"), Vice President, b. Sainte-Rosalie, Bagot County, December 27, 1864 (December 26, 1863, Sainte-Rosalie-de-Bagot, B. 55). Arrived in USA: July 10, 1868, Brunswick. Naturalized: September 5, 1888. Witnesses: Pierre Letarte and Joseph Dionne.

• Joseph Dionne, Vice President, b. Saint-Alexandre, County of Kamouraska, July 14, 1862. Arrived in USA: 1870, Brunswick. Naturalized: March 1, 1884. In his naturalization petition, filed just a few months prior to the publication of the article transcribed above, Joseph gives his address as Lewiston, not Brunswick. His witnesses, P.X. Angus and John McGraw are Lewistonians. I’m persuaded that this is probably the man cited in the article above, but I can’t be sure. There was no shortage of Joseph Dionnes available in Québec and its New England extensions at this time. 

Although his name appears in at least two petitions as a witness, I have not been able to find a petition for Henri ("Henry") Ragot, the only leader who is mentioned as having addressed the 1884 meeting. Unlike almost all of the Brunswick Franco-Americans of the time, the census of 1880 indicates that Henri Ragot, born in 1850, did not work for the Cabot textile mill. He was employed as a glassmaker. Louis Trudeau, not surprisingly, given his role as Secretary was a clerk. He was not an operative in the mill although he may have clerked at the mill.

Although the naturalization petitions do not allow us to determine the last known Québec residence of our petitioners (which is not necessarily the same as their place of birth), it appears that the L'Islet Brunswickers were not especially prominent in the leadership group. The leaders of the "permanent organization" had their origins in many regions of Québec. I find only one representative from L'Islet among them.

Naturalization Petition for Theodore Vermette:
He must swear he is neither an anarchist nor a polygamist!

Five of the eight leaders identified above were United States citizens at the time of the 1884 meeting. Allowing for some inaccuracies with respect to the very precise dates the petitioners provide for their arrival in the States it is evident that the leaders had been acquainted with Brunswick for some time. Most of them arrived in the 1860s and all of them claim to have come to the States before 1872.

Among the leaders, the President, Noel Vandal, had been in the States the longest. He was south of the border nearly 25 years before the 1884 meeting. He was naturalized eight years prior his election as President.

The Brunswick Franco community at large decided that it was to its advantage to engage the American political process. This makes Brunswick an exception to what we read in some general histories and contradicts the messages about Franco-Americans in the mainstream media of the day.

Nativist Rhetoric, Assimilation, and Cross-Border Immigration

A Romance-language speaking, predominantly Roman Catholic population crosses the border into the USA from a neighboring country. At first they come as migrant workers but some of them stay. Their customs are different from, if not odious to, their immediate neighbors who leave their homes to the growing tide of newcomers. Those immigrants who set up permanent residence in the USA bring their relatives and neighbors across the border to the growing enclave. This process replicates. Soon the newcomers represent a coherent ethnic presence.

Alarm grows over these newcomers. Hand wringing in the media begins over the issues of language, schools, and the political participation and leanings of the newcomers. Strategies for influencing them to assimilate to the American way of life are discussed. There’s an atmosphere of threat surrounding these people as stereotypes and misinformation are passed around like a basketball.

This scenario ought to have a familiar ring to any American with reasonably functional gray matter. It is little-known, however, that this drama is a repeat performance. What is now occurring on the USA’s southwestern border occurred on its northeastern border some 90-130 years ago and, remarkably, this parallel is almost never drawn, the lessons of the past never learned. The Québécois and Acadian immigration into New England gave rise to perceived threats and proposed solutions that are remarkably similar to what we hear today.

Consider this piece from the September 23, 1885 edition of the New York Times under the headline “Canadians in New England.”

In such towns as Fall River and Holyoke the French Canadians have nearly shouldered out the native American (sic) operatives, who a generation ago impressed foreign observers by their superiority to any persons engaged in similar occupations elsewhere. They have crowded the Irish very hard, and they form a much more intractable element in the social problem. Where they constitute an appreciable part they constitute much the most physically degraded part of the “tenement house population.” Their dwellings are the despair of sanitarians and themselves the despair of social philosophers. Nor is there any prospect of an improvement. They are the Chinese of New-England inasmuch as they seem rarely to strike root in our soil. Whatever may be the fate of the Irish immigrant, there is always the hope that his children and his grandchildren may be assimilated with the native population. He himself has at least come with the intention of remaining. His interest in the land of his birth is chiefly sentimental… But even if the French Canadian leaves his bones here his thoughts all lie beyond the Canadian border, and he cannot be brought to take any interest in the life around him of a community in which he regards himself as merely a sojourner. He maintains his own churches and no schools. Add to this feeling of alienism that he is absolutely unenterprising (sic), and it becomes evident that he must be a troublesome element in the population.

Here, as in later anti-immigrant and nativist rhetoric, the “good” immigrant of the past is contrasted with the “intractable” newcomer. The Irish are the foil for the threat of a cross-border incursion by a "troublesome element." Not long before this article’s publication, the Irish immigrant was met with anti-Catholic riots and signs reading, “No Irish Need Apply.” But after the nativist has turned his attention to a new target, the earlier wave of immigrants appears in a brighter light. 

The same forgetfulness of history applies today when a Leblanc or a Levesque disparages newer arrivals, along with the grandchildren of waves of emigration from Poland, Italy, or Greece. They imagine their forbears as the good immigrants who are somehow different from today's.

The unquestioned assumption in this 1885 piece is that cultural assimilation to American civilization is good in and of itself. It is not only the supposed unwillingness of the Canadiens to participate in civic life that irks the editorialist. It is that they refuse to accept the manifest superiority of the Anglo-Americans. The French Canadians have the temerity to prefer their own ways to his. That’s what is behind his calumnies, his tone of resentment.

If our editorialist had read his own paper he might have been amazed to find that these ignorant, “unenterprising,” “physically degraded,” “troublesome,” “tenement house population,” who took no interest in the community around them, had the self-awareness and organizational skills to choose delegates and hold an annual convention to discuss questions of national concern. Almost exactly a year before this 1885 editorial, the following item appeared in this very same newspaper (August 6, 1884).

ALBANY, Aug. 5. – The third National Convention of French Canadians assembled this morning, about 200 delegates being present, principally from the Eastern States and Canada…The object of the meeting…is to discuss subjects of universal importance and in which the French Canadians have a special interest. “Not the least among them [a delegate] said, “is the education of the growing generation. We also desire to impress upon our people the necessity of becoming citizens of this great Republic and to utilize the advantages and benefits to be derived from such citizenship; to remind the great family of French people of the United States not to forget their mother country by allowing the use of her beautiful language to be neglected; to inspire our people to have a sacred respect for our religion…” During its sessions the following topics will be discussed: “Establishment of French Catholic schools,” "The French Canadian Press,” “Naturalization,” “Emigration”…The last discussion of the convention will be, “Would it be to our interest to take part in the political affairs of this country?”

The 1884 article has the form of a news report while the 1885 piece is an editorial. The former, which reflects the genuine interests of the French Canadians in the USA, quite contradicts the latter.

Our editorialist complains about the lack of schools among the French Canadians. The leadership of the community was not at all unaware of this deficiency since it’s at the top of their agenda. The 1885 editorial suggests that the French-speakers fail to take any interest in their new community. Au contraire, the convention promotes not only the desirability, but, indeed “the necessity of becoming citizens of this great Republic.” These are not the words of the leaders of a community that wishes to remain aloof from its civic responsibilities. It also implies that the question appearing as the last item on the convention’s agenda is rhetorical.

The convention’s objectives are clear. Our community had every intention of educating its children, acquiring citizenship, and participating in American civic life but it also wished to preserve its language and religion.

The editorialist of 1885 sees cultural assimilation and civic participation as inseparable. The French Canadian leadership, however, had come from a country with an ideology of two peuples fondateurs with different languages and religions under the same national banner. For these leaders, there was no contradiction at all between the preservation of one’s culture and full participation in civic life. 

Is an American one who upholds the Constitution and the law of the land regardless of language, creed or culture or is it an Anglophone who is also culturally Anglo-Saxon and Protestant? The answer is no clearer today than it was in the 1880s.