A History of the American People

marry the German women, but dismissed the idea for German women are generally so disagreeable to an English eye that it wou'd require great portions to induce Englishmen to marry them.' These views were by no means unusual among the founders. Neither Washington nor Jefferson wanted unlimited or even large-scale immigration. Defining what constituted an American citizen was not easy. As early as 1776, New Hampshire and South Carolina, writing their new constitutions, laid down that all state officers must swear an oathto support, maintain and defend' the provisional constitution. Six months
later, Congress, in adopting independence, replaced loyalty to the crown by loyalty to the nation:
All persons residing within any of the United Colonies, and deriving their protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of such colony ... [and] all persons, members of or owing allegiance to any of the United Colonies ... who shall level war against any of the said colonies ... or be adherents to the King of Great Britain ... are guilty of treason against any such colony.’ This did not settle what citizenship was, however. Indeed the term was then new and little understood. The assumption was that everyone belonged to his or her particular state and thence derived their citizenship of the United States, a view later categorized by justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) of the Supreme Court, who laid down thatEvery citizen of a State is ipso facto a
citizen of the United States.' Most states had citizenship rules of one kind or another. But what of
immigrants coming to the country from outside? The federal Constitution of 1787 laid down a
national standard of neutralization by Act of Congress. Several Acts were passed, in 1795, 1798,
and again in 1802, before Congress felt it had got the formula right, the main difference being
the length of residence required before the applicant got nationality-the first criterion, two years,
was considered too short, the next, fourteen, too long, and finally five years was judged right.
The federal Constitution, and the states, reserved citizenship to whites, implicitly excluding
blacks (even if free) and still-tribalized Indians, regarded as belonging to foreign nations. White
women were citizens except for voting purposes, a rule which was not changed till 1920. Blacks
did not get automatic citizenship till 1868, Indians not till 1924. But the most important point
was that the new country, like the old colonies, continued to admit immigrants virtually without
restriction, and they continued to come, in ever growing numbers.
After five years, most immigrants got the vote, for, as a result of the Revolution, America was
rapidly becoming democratic. The Founding Fathers might insist on checks and balances and
take precautions against the tyranny of the majority,' but though constitutions are made by educated elites, what actually happens on the ground is usually determined by ordinary people. Their demands, as citizens and taxpayers, turned on its head the Revolution sloganNo taxation
without representation.' If the King of England was not allowed to tax Americans without giving
them representation, why should states tax any American citizen without giving him a vote about
how his taxes were raised and spent? Most states readily agreed. In New York State the
federalists, who generally opposed what one of their leaders, Chancellor James Kent, called the evil genius of democracy,' fought a determined rearguard action to retain a freehold property qualification, at any rate for the electors of the state Senate. Kent argued that, while everyone else was worshipingthe idol of universal suffrage,' New York should set an example and
maintain property as qualification because it was a sort of moral and independent test of character in the electorate, which we could get at in no other practicable mode,' and only voters of sound character could defend society againstthe onrushing rabble.' But he was answered that
making distinctions between one set of Americans and another, especially one based on
ownership of land, was an odious remnant of aristocracy,' a system ofprivilege,' running