A HOUSE DIVIDED: CULTURAL BACKLASH AND ECONOMIC INSECURITY IN POLAND AND HUNGARY By HENRI DANJOLLI Under the direction of Professor Jan Kubik April 12, 2018 A senior thesis submitted to the Political Science Department of Rutgers University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts PROLOGUE The resurgence of populist sentiment across Europe and many parts of the world is concerning and deserves attention because of the powerful influence that populism has in shaping the global economy and international relations. The task of the citizen is to make an educated vote based on the options offered in each election. However, the language that is adopted by populists may sound similar to the rhetoric used by mainstream politicians, therefore it may be difficult to discern who is a populist and who is not. Politicians have often gone up to the podium and proclaimed that they have the ideas that will bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice. The question remains as to whether or not they should have the most important voice in the room when it comes to deciding what is just. Justice is a difficult topic to elucidate because on one hand it is subject to normative social influence and on the other hand, society’s conceptualization on what is just is liable to change as time passes. In other words, in order to change a society’s perception of justice, most people in that society must agree upon the amended definition. A thorough study of history reveals that change does not always come easy. This is exemplified in the Antebellum of American history and more specifically in the period between the Compromise of 1850 to the late 1850s. In the 19th century, the United States faced an existential crisis because it had just acquired new territory in the aftermath of the Mexican War through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the territory had no history of slavery at a time when slavery was the norm in the South. A divided Congress was conflicted about admitting new states, as this would alter the balance of ideologies between slave and free states in the Senate. At the start of 1850, Senator Henry Clay, also known as “the Great Compromiser”, put forward a set of proposals that he believed could ameliorate tensions between his colleagues and the rest of the country. i The complex set of legislative acts that he proposed was then sent to Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, a Democrat, who believed that the only way to push the multi-faceted set of proposals through the legislative process was to divide it into five smaller packages. As the name implies, the Great Compromise attempted to appease the North and the South through its offerings. The North would have California admitted as a free state, slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C., and Texas would lose its boundary dispute with New Mexico. The South would have no slavery restrictions in Utah or New Mexico (both territories at the time), slaveholding would be permitted in Washington D.C., and Texas would get ten million dollars. After the Compromise was passed, many Southern Whigs broke away from the party’s main figure, Senator Henry Clay. One of the most controversial points of the Compromise was the instatement of a tougher federal fugitive slave law. This was a law that the South demanded from the Compromise, as slavery was vital to their economy. It required all escaped slaves to be returned to their masters regardless of one’s support or opposition to slavery, whether one was a Northern Freesoiler or a Southern slave owner. President Millard Fillmore supported the Compromise and sent a message to Congress with two recommendations. The first was that Texas would receive payment and in return it would stop attempting to be a part of New Mexico. The second recommendation entailed that the Wilmot Proviso be overturned. The Wilmot Proviso was a piece of legislation that mandated the United States ban slavery in the newly acquired territory following the Mexican War. In 1852, the Whig party nominated General Winfield Scott of New Jersey for the presidency and William Graham for the vice-presidency. The two Whig nominees both pledged to enforce the Compromise. In the same year, Harriet Beecher Stowe would publish Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the anti-slavery novel is attributed to have been a catalyst for ii the American Civil War. "Harriet Beecher Stowe's most famous introduction took place on or around Thanksgiving Day, 1862, when she was introduced to President Abraham Lincoln, who allegedly greeted her with these memorable words, ‘So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!” (Weinstein 2004:1). The same year also saw the rise of the Native American Party, which was commonly known as the “Know-Nothing” Party. It was a secret organization that did not reveal its ideologies to non-members. When questioned about their beliefs their members would reply with the eponymous phrase, “I know nothing”. The main candidates in the presidential election of 1852 consisted of Franklin Pierce for the Democratic Party and General Winfield Scott for the Whig Party. Both faced criticism for being anti-Catholic and against slavery even though both candidates sought unequivocal enforcement of the Compromise of 1852. With the election of Franklin Pierce and growing intraparty division on the topic of slavery, the Whig Party would go into decline. The Native American party also received very few votes. Many former Whigs in the North and the South eventually joined the Know- Nothing Party. The election of 1852 introduced cultural tensions surrounding the evolving opinions on the issue of slavery as well as anti-Catholic and nativist sentiment from the inflow of immigrants, such as the Irish Catholics who arrived to escape the Great Famine of the early ‘50s. “From 1845 to 1854, some 2,900,000 immigrants landed in the United States, more than had come in the seven previous decades combined” (Anbinder 2005:3). Many immigrants settled in Massachusetts, which may be attributed to the fact that it was on the eastern coast of the US and it bordered the Atlantic Ocean. Further growing pains would proliferate throughout the country. A guerrilla war known as “Bleeding Kansas” was another cultural conflict in 1854 in which settlers who favored slavery and those who were against it fought in an attempt to iii establish “popular sovereignty”. The Know-Nothing Party may have used this cultural strife to frame an “us” versus “them” narrative that would have been in line with their party’s ideology. The Know-Nothings greatest rise to prominence had been in Massachusetts and especially in the Gubernatorial election of 1854. Native American Party candidate Henry J. Gardner would go on to become the Governor of Massachusetts from 1854 to 1857. During this time, he would pass a fair amount of legislation in accordance with the anti-immigrant sentiment of his party. The Native American Party’s influence in Massachusetts was astounding – “after the election of 1854, the governor, all state officers, the entire state senate, and all but three state representatives were Know-Nothings” (Commonwealth Museum, 2018). They pledged to purify the political arena by ending any influence that Irish Catholics and other immigrants could have had on state legislation. How did the Know-Nothings come to have such an overwhelming amount of power in Massachusetts more so than any other state? The literature proposes many speculations that revolve around the fear of cultural changes and economic insecurity. “One possible reason was culture; people did not want to be exposed to other cultures” (Commonwealth Museum, 2018). Scholars have noted that Protestants feared that Irish Catholics were being sent by the Pope to take over the United States. “Another reason was economic; immigrants were desperate for money and willing to work for less than Americans. This second reason would also explain why most of the people opposed to immigration were working class; they were afraid of the competition” (Commonwealth Museum, 2018). Governor Gardner expressed arguably the most explicit declaration of his nativist and authoritarian sentiment in the Governor’s Address of 1855. He said that he would focus his efforts to keep Massachusetts pure from the danger posed by immigrants by passing legislation iv designed to disenfranchise those illiterate in English. In the Address, he states his worries that “during the present decade… nearly four millions of aliens will probably be poured in upon us… nearly ⅘ of the beggary, two-thirds of the pauperism, and more than ⅗ of the crimes spring from our foreign populations” (Gardner 1857). In his campaign rhetoric and inaugural address, the governor also introduced the language that today would certainly be recognized as populist. He proposed “Americanizing America”, reading the Protestant King James Bible in public schools for uniformity, and sending socioeconomically disadvantaged immigrants back to Liverpool. Much like the current leading right-wing populist in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, Gardner permits immigrants to remain in the country but with one stipulation. He reasoned that immigrants must have lived in America for a minimum of twenty-one years before they could vote since the voting age was twenty-one years old. Based on this argument alone, one may argue that this strict constructionist mode of governance had revealed the authoritarian tendencies most likely strongly embedded in Governor Gardner’s beliefs. Although much of the antagonism toward immigrants seemed contained in the eastern portion of the US, the sentiment was felt nationally. The Know-Nothings ran Millard Fillmore as a candidate in the 1956 Presidential Election and they came in last behind President James Buchanan and Republican candidate John C.