that spirit which was to break out two years later in the form of Know-Nothingism. The bill as introduced in the House would have granted lands to all citizens of the United States who should comply with its provisions. To this an amendment was offered which restricted its benefits to native-born citizens or to those who had declared their intention of becoming citizens prior to the first of January, 1852. This amendment was offered by Johnson and was supported by a number of other members of the House because they did not wish to encourage immigration by the bill;[1] but Johnson finally withdrew it.[2]
During the next Congress the restriction as to citizens was a part of the proposed bill, and the efforts to remove it met with violent opposition. Washburn of Illinois had proposed to allow anyone who had filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen to enter land under the bill, as this would encourage immigration; but this proposal was disagreed to without a division.[3] Wade then wished to remove all restrictions as to citizenship, but in this he was strongly opposed by several members, including Adams of Mississippi, who referred to the anti-slavery position which the foreigners were taking, and Thompson of Kentucky, who made a severe attack on the immigrants, although he declared that he was not a "Native American" in the political sense of the term.[4] Wade saw that his amendment would endanger and probably defeat the bill, and he withdrew it.[5] But even then the bill was objectionable to those members of Congress who were tinctured with "Americanism," for another section contained the provision that any person who had, at the time of the passage of the act, declared his intention of becoming a citizen should be entitled to the benefit of its provisions. This section was attacked. The assertion was made that the passage of the bill in that form would contribute to the growth of the Native American party, particularly in the South.[6] The National Intelligencer[7] characterized the bill as one which would "draw to our shores the poverty and crime of every clime and kingdom" of Europe. But in spite of these dire predictions the motion to strike out this section was defeated, 19 to 29.[8]
As if the cause of homesteads were not having troubles enough at this time, the question of the extension of slavery, now agitating
