14
Journal, dated 8 March 1790, refer to the Act in the following terms: “It is a vile bill,
illiberal, and void of philanthropy, and needed much mending.” The Journal goes on to
say, “the governing ideas, however, seem to be the following: that the holding of
property, not being among the powers granted to Congress, remained with the different
states.” These concerns suggest that Congress, while mindful of their grant of power,
have failed to provide a piece of legislation capable of creating the type of citizens called
for in a republican government. Specifically, Maclay calls one’s attention to the
possibility that naturalization act fails to provide for an immigrant’s political attachment
to the government. This would be a topic of central importance in debates over the
Naturalization Act of 1795.
Naturalization Act of 1795
On 19 April 1794, a motion was made by Representative Sitgreaves of
Massachusetts for the House to consider “the protection of commerce and the defense of
our country,” and to report upon “the expediency of establishing by law, regulations
respecting aliens arriving or residing within the United States” (III 1453-54).
14
Inquiry
into the existing naturalization laws was in response to one international and one
domestic factor. Baseler (1998) notes that the Federalist Congress responded in large
measure to the large number of French citizens in the country and the fear that America
may soon be at war with France. Domestically, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 in the
Western counties of Pennsylvania generated considerable uneasiness. Federalists held
that the rebellion was evidence of the subversive radicalism of one group of immigrants
in particular, the Irish. With both foreign and domestic factors weighing heavily in their
14
All references to work found in the Annals of Congress refer to Congress and
page number. All references are from the Gales edition of the Annals of Congress.
Convention