The Philadelphia Immigration Riots of 1844

[dbackjon]

Hmmm

The Irish were one of the largest immigrant groups to settle in 19th-century North Philadelphia, and their numbers increased after Ireland’s famine exodus of the late 1840s. The mass influx of Irish Catholics into Pennsylvania coincided with a growing anti-immigrant sentiment that was fueled in part by the devastating economic depression of the late 1830s and early1840s. Economic insecurity, coupled with rapid mechanization of many crafts and trades, created uneasiness and resentment on the part of the native-born population. Anti-immigrant American-born Protestant Anglos portrayed themselves as “native” Americans in contrast to the “invading” Irish foreigners. Kensington’s Irish immigrants formed their own community and social networks centered on the church, the tavern, and the volunteer firehouse. The “nativists” accused the Irish of isolating themselves from the larger society and being unwilling to assimilate. The nativists were especially agitated by the perceived role of the Catholic Church in the lives and politics of the Irish, convinced that Irish Catholics followed the directives of the pope in Rome.

The most highly publicized source of tension between the two communities arose from the nativists’ fears of Irish immigrants’ “popery” politics and “clannish” ways. the more immediate reality was that the nativist working classes felt particularly threatened by Irish Catholic competition for jobs and housing. The common perception that the largely poor, unskilled Irish immigrants drove down wages by working for next to nothing stoked nativist antipathies. (The Irish often felt the same way about African Americans, their closest competitors for scarce jobs and housing, and Irish violence against blacks was common in the 19th century.)

n May 1844, the tensions came to a head in Kensington’s Nanny Goat Market with a violent nativist–Irish clash that lasted for three days. The immediate cause of the riots of 1844 stemmed from Catholic opposition to the exclusive use of the Protestant Bible in the public schools. The bible controversy galvanized the nativists’ political arm, the American Republican Party, and on May 6, 1844, they deliberately staged a political rally directly across from the Nanny Goat Market. Along with St. Michael’s, the Market was an essential hub of Irish community life. An open shed for local food merchants, it served as a social gathering place for shopping and exchanging information. The nativists knew that the Irish would regard the rally as an invasion of their turf.
http://www.philaplace.org/story/316/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danefan]

Thank you Jon. I was waiting for a response to this. I was too lazy to do the research and find a link.

The Irish, Italian, and all the other cultures did not march down the street with foreign flags, hiding their faces, demanding "rights" to which they are not entitled, and physically attacking peaceful protesters who opposed them.

[dbackjon]

That story could have been written this year. Amazing how history repeats itself. Lots of anti-immigrant/immigrant riots in the nativist period - Protestant Americans (Anglos) where concerned that the Popist Irish/Italian?Germans were going to ruin the American way of life.

[89Hen]

Thank you Jon. I was waiting for a response to this. I was too lazy to do the research and find a link.

The Irish, Italian, and all the other cultures did not march down the street with foreign flags, hiding their faces, demanding "rights" to which they are not entitled, and physically attacking peaceful protesters who opposed them.

Jon's article sounded like the Nativists were the violent ones.

[grizzaholic]

I thought this was going to rag on about how Philly is nothing but a bunch of hooligans.

[native]

Hmmm

The Irish were one of the largest immigrant groups to settle in 19th-century North Philadelphia, and their numbers increased after Ireland’s famine exodus of the late 1840s. The mass influx of Irish Catholics into Pennsylvania coincided with a growing anti-immigrant sentiment that was fueled in part by the devastating economic depression of the late 1830s and early1840s. Economic insecurity, coupled with rapid mechanization of many crafts and trades, created uneasiness and resentment on the part of the native-born population. Anti-immigrant American-born Protestant Anglos portrayed themselves as “native” Americans in contrast to the “invading” Irish foreigners. Kensington’s Irish immigrants formed their own community and social networks centered on the church, the tavern, and the volunteer firehouse. The “nativists” accused the Irish of isolating themselves from the larger society and being unwilling to assimilate. The nativists were especially agitated by the perceived role of the Catholic Church in the lives and politics of the Irish, convinced that Irish Catholics followed the directives of the pope in Rome.

The most highly publicized source of tension between the two communities arose from the nativists’ fears of Irish immigrants’ “popery” politics and “clannish” ways. the more immediate reality was that the nativist working classes felt particularly threatened by Irish Catholic competition for jobs and housing. The common perception that the largely poor, unskilled Irish immigrants drove down wages by working for next to nothing stoked nativist antipathies. (The Irish often felt the same way about African Americans, their closest competitors for scarce jobs and housing, and Irish violence against blacks was common in the 19th century.)

n May 1844, the tensions came to a head in Kensington’s Nanny Goat Market with a violent nativist–Irish clash that lasted for three days. The immediate cause of the riots of 1844 stemmed from Catholic opposition to the exclusive use of the Protestant Bible in the public schools. The bible controversy galvanized the nativists’ political arm, the American Republican Party, and on May 6, 1844, they deliberately staged a political rally directly across from the Nanny Goat Market. Along with St. Michael’s, the Market was an essential hub of Irish community life. An open shed for local food merchants, it served as a social gathering place for shopping and exchanging information. The nativists knew that the Irish would regard the rally as an invasion of their turf.
http://www.philaplace.org/story/316/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bravo! Interesting post!

Some of the parallels with today are valid, some are not, jonboy.

[andy7171]

Very interesting. Good post dback!

[dbackjon]

Hmmm

The Irish were one of the largest immigrant groups to settle in 19th-century North Philadelphia, and their numbers increased after Ireland’s famine exodus of the late 1840s. The mass influx of Irish Catholics into Pennsylvania coincided with a growing anti-immigrant sentiment that was fueled in part by the devastating economic depression of the late 1830s and early1840s. Economic insecurity, coupled with rapid mechanization of many crafts and trades, created uneasiness and resentment on the part of the native-born population. Anti-immigrant American-born Protestant Anglos portrayed themselves as “native” Americans in contrast to the “invading” Irish foreigners. Kensington’s Irish immigrants formed their own community and social networks centered on the church, the tavern, and the volunteer firehouse. The “nativists” accused the Irish of isolating themselves from the larger society and being unwilling to assimilate. The nativists were especially agitated by the perceived role of the Catholic Church in the lives and politics of the Irish, convinced that Irish Catholics followed the directives of the pope in Rome.

The most highly publicized source of tension between the two communities arose from the nativists’ fears of Irish immigrants’ “popery” politics and “clannish” ways. the more immediate reality was that the nativist working classes felt particularly threatened by Irish Catholic competition for jobs and housing. The common perception that the largely poor, unskilled Irish immigrants drove down wages by working for next to nothing stoked nativist antipathies. (The Irish often felt the same way about African Americans, their closest competitors for scarce jobs and housing, and Irish violence against blacks was common in the 19th century.)

n May 1844, the tensions came to a head in Kensington’s Nanny Goat Market with a violent nativist–Irish clash that lasted for three days. The immediate cause of the riots of 1844 stemmed from Catholic opposition to the exclusive use of the Protestant Bible in the public schools. The bible controversy galvanized the nativists’ political arm, the American Republican Party, and on May 6, 1844, they deliberately staged a political rally directly across from the Nanny Goat Market. Along with St. Michael’s, the Market was an essential hub of Irish community life. An open shed for local food merchants, it served as a social gathering place for shopping and exchanging information. The nativists knew that the Irish would regard the rally as an invasion of their turf.
http://www.philaplace.org/story/316/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bravo! Interesting post!

Some of the parallels with today are valid, some are not, jonboy.

While there are not all exact parallels, it shows that immigration has ALWAYS been a touchy subject in the United States, and gloom and doom predicted during every wave of immigration.

[native]

...While there are not all exact parallels, it shows that immigration has ALWAYS been a touchy subject in the United States, and gloom and doom predicted during every wave of immigration.

Fair enough, but let's please be honest about the differences between then and now.

[dbackjon]

...While there are not all exact parallels, it shows that immigration has ALWAYS been a touchy subject in the United States, and gloom and doom predicted during every wave of immigration.

Fair enough, but let's please be honest about the differences between then and now.

I know of a couple - but would interested in what some of yours are.

I will start with what I think is the BIG ONE: Proxementy to source of immigration...

[Baldy]

Fair enough, but let's please be honest about the differences between then and now.

I know of a couple - but would interested in what some of yours are.

I will start with what I think is the BIG ONE: Proxementy to source of immigration...

Swing and a miss....
Two of the easiest and most relevant differences:
1. The Irish/Italians/etc./etc./etc. came in the front door and didn't sneak in the back.
2. The immigrants of that day assimilated themselves into the culture of the United States, not vice versa.

[native]

Fair enough, but let's please be honest about the differences between then and now.

I know of a couple - but would interested in what some of yours are.

I will start with what I think is the BIG ONE: Proxementy to source of immigration...

Baldy named a couple of valid points. Border proximity is a difference, too. Initiation of violence is another. The violence on May Day was initiated exclusively by the illegal immigration lobby.

Make sure you get me right on one important thing, jon: I am FOR legal immigration!

It's not possible to be a good neighbor or assimilate while you are lying, cheating and stealing to be here. The lawless aspect of illegal immigration creates a lawless subculture.

[dbackjon]

I know of a couple - but would interested in what some of yours are.

I will start with what I think is the BIG ONE: Proxementy to source of immigration...

Swing and a miss....
Two of the easiest and most relevant differences:
1. The Irish/Italians/etc./etc./etc. came in the front door and didn't sneak in the back.
2. The immigrants of that day assimilated themselves into the culture of the United States, not vice versa.

The front door was wide open back then - but even then, people wanted to throw them out
WRONG - big swing and miss. It took generations for them to assimilate into the US culture, and they never fully assimilated - they melded their culture into the existing culture, which is the same that is happening today.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Before I read Dbacks post I just want to say they were here Legally.



Thank You for your time

[GannonFan]

The post is good - there has always been some pretty strong emotions and actions against immigration in this country. Of course, the biggest difference between then and now is that immigrant groups like the Irish weren't coming into the country illegally. We had a wide open immigration policy up until the early part of the 1900's when the rules on immigration were put in place and greatly tightened. There's no doubt that the legality of immigrants in the US today is something that didn't exist back in the early times of the country.

[native]

The post is good - there has always been some pretty strong emotions and actions against immigration in this country. Of course, the biggest difference between then and now is that immigrant groups like the Irish weren't coming into the country illegally. We had a wide open immigration policy up until the early part of the 1900's when the rules on immigration were put in place and greatly tightened. There's no doubt that the legality of immigrants in the US today is something that didn't exist back in the early times of the country.

Be careful, GF. You are in grave danger of losing your antinative bona fides.

[dbackjon]

Gannon Fan is correct - the first US immigration law did not exist until 1882, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

[AZGrizFan]

That story could have been written this year. Amazing how history repeats itself. Lots of anti-immigrant/immigrant riots in the nativist period - Protestant Americans (Anglos) where concerned that the Popist Irish/Italian?Germans were going to ruin the American way of life.

Except I'm guessing every one of those Irish immigrants was here legally.

Swing and a miss, Jon. As usual.

[89Hen]

Who here is opposed to legal immigration?

[blueballs]

The biggest difference between the situation described in the very interesting article (thanks Jon!) and now is that it appears that the Irish of the early 1830's immigrated to the country legally whereas the situation in question currently has to do with willfull disobidience of several laws. Also, there were no public services to speak of in the 1830's being drained the way the state governments are now.

What it comes down to is this: Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of men who do what they please without regard to the laws of the land. If we have laws then the laws should be enforced equally for the common good, otherwise we will have anarchy which is what the illegal immigration situation in the "sand states" is fast becoming.

[AZGrizFan]

The biggest difference between the situation described in the very interesting article (thanks Jon!) and now is that it appears that the Irish of the early 1830's immigrated to the country legally whereas the situation in question currently has to do with willfull disobidience of several laws. Also, there were no public services to speak of in the 1830's being drained the way the state governments are now.

What it comes down to is this: Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of men who do what they please without regard to the laws of the land. If we have laws then the laws should be enforced equally for the common good, otherwise we will have anarchy which is what the illegal immigration situation in the "sand states" is fast becoming.

+1

[native]

The biggest difference between the situation described in the very interesting article (thanks Jon!) and now is that it appears that the Irish of the early 1830's immigrated to the country legally whereas the situation in question currently has to do with willfull disobidience of several laws. Also, there were no public services to speak of in the 1830's being drained the way the state governments are now.

What it comes down to is this: Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of men who do what they please without regard to the laws of the land. If we have laws then the laws should be enforced equally for the common good, otherwise we will have anarchy which is what the illegal immigration situation in the "sand states" is fast becoming.

+1

Mega Dittos!

[dbackjon]

Who here is opposed to legal immigration?

I think a broader question is what LEVEL of legal immigration are you willing to support.

Most of the illegals would LOVE to be legal, but the US restricts the legal immigration. Should it be made more available? Guest worker programs?

[89Hen]

I think a broader question is what LEVEL of legal immigration are you willing to support.

The level that is determined to be most appropriate for our economy and to help the most people without hurting it.

[GannonFan]

Who here is opposed to legal immigration?

I think a broader question is what LEVEL of legal immigration are you willing to support.

Most of the illegals would LOVE to be legal, but the US restricts the legal immigration. Should it be made more available? Guest worker programs?

It's not as if the US is decidedly anti-immigrant. The US accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all the other countries in the world combined. There are about 40 million foreign born American residents today, or close to 15% of the population, and we naturalized more than 1M people last year alone. And there are already guest worker programs for people wanting to come to the US - the H-1B visa program is one such program, and has brought in upwards to 200,000 people per year. Sure, those numbers may still be less than the total number of people who want to come to this country, but at some point, you do need to put a limit on it - I doubt that we would fare very well in an unlimited immigration environment.