The Scandinavian Element in the United States

“The Lutherans of Wisconsin do not oppose the Bennett Law because they are the enemies of the English language… The Lutherans oppose the present compulsory school law because – whether designedly or not – it in fact infringes on the rights of conscience guaranteed by the constitution, and the right of parents to educate according to their convictions, their own children… In short, the Lutherans insist upon their right to establish private schools at their own expense, and regulate them, without any interference on the part of the State, … that their children may become Lutheran Christians as well as loyal and good citizens.”⁴¹⁴ The official circular of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Wisconsin, dated January 25, 1890, almost a year after the passage of the act, was a statement of the opposite point of view, and a justification of attempts to enforce the law. Incidentally it was a political pamphlet as well. Superintendent Thayer said: “The thing that is antagonized by this law is the practice of allowing children of this State of proper school age, to pass that period of life without acquiring the minimum of education in elementary branches; without acquiring the ability to think in the language of the country, to express themselves intelligibly in that language, orally, in writing, and in business forms.”

All through the latter part of 1889 and the first ten months of 1890, the agitation went on. The press gave great space to it; some papers through several months, both in Wisconsin and in the neighboring States where Lutherans and Catholics were numerous, offered “symposiums” which printed arguments on both sides.⁴¹⁵ Public Opinion summarized the sentiment for the larger world.⁴¹⁶ Church assemblies took action, and finally an Anti-Bennett Law convention was held in Milwaukee, June 4, 1890.

The Democrats were not slow in seizing the advantage offered, and managed their campaign of 1890 very shrewdly. The combination of sternly anti-Catholic German and Norwegian Lutherans, usually Republican, with Roman Catholics, under the Democratic banner, was irresistible. In spite of the frantic appeals of the Republican press and speakers for loyalty to the American flag and to the “little red school house,” the Democrats elected their candidate for governor, and a legislature pledged to give the desired relief. By the six-line act of February 5, 1891, the Bennett Law was repealed, and two months later another compulsory education act was passed without the offensive and troublesome four words.⁴¹⁷ The work of the Lutheran-Catholic alliance was done; the heterogeneous, naturally antagonistic elements fell apart; and in a few years old party lines were re-established. The plurality of 28,000 by which the Democratic Governor, G. W. Peck, was elected in 1890, overcoming the usual Republican plurality of about 20,000, was reduced at his re-election in 1892 to 7,700. In 1894 the Republican candidate defeated Governor Peck by the handsome plurality of 50,000 votes.⁴¹⁸

While the Bennett Law agitation was going on in Wisconsin, a similar, but milder disturbance occurred in Illinois. The compulsory education act of the latter State, which went into effect July 1, 1889, was closely, if not deliberately, modelled after the Wisconsin statute, and enacted that “no school shall be regarded as a school under this act, unless there shall be taught therein in the English language, reading, writing, arithmetic, history of the United States, and geography.”⁴¹⁹ In the campaign of 1890, the Republican candidate for State Superintendent of Education, favoring the new compulsory education law, was defeated by some 36,000 votes by Raab, the Democratic candidate who opposed the law. The Norwegians and Danes in the city of Chicago probably voted for Raab in large numbers, tho he won the Swedish wards of that city by small pluralities. In such counties as Knox, with its two thousand Swedish voters, and Winnebago (in which is situated the city of Rockford, with about fifteen hundred Swedish voters), where one-third of the foreign born population was at that time Scandinavian, the Republican candidate received large majorities. A writer for America, the periodical published in English for Scandinavian readers, claimed proudly that “the large Swedish settlements in Henry, Rock Island, Bureau, De Kalb, Henderson, Warren, Mercer, Ford, Whiteside, and other counties cast a solid vote for Edwards… The Swedes were in favor of compulsory education almost to a man.”⁴²⁰ In the city of Chicago, the County Superintendent of Schools for Cook County was re-elected by a plurality of 23,000 tho he favored the compulsory law. The repeal of the law of 1889 was not so prompt in Illinois as it was in Wisconsin, for it was not until 1893 that a new and expurgated compulsory education measure took its place.⁴²¹

A close and detailed examination of the legislative journals and the statutes of the Northwestern States does not reveal above a half-dozen laws which can be said to be due to the leadership and direct influence of the Scandinavians as such. On the other hand, in the field of general legislation these men have been indistinguishable from the native-born in ability, efficiency, and uprightness; the gross and net products of the labors of those legislatures with many Scandinavian representatives in such states as Minnesota and North Dakota, are not perceptibly different from the output of legislatures in which no Swede or Norwegian ever sat, as in Michigan or Colorado. Scarcely a law has been passed for the purpose of catering to the preferences, or of catching the vote, of the sons of the Northlands.

An exception to this general statement is the Minnesota law of 1883 providing for the establishment of a “professorship of Scandinavian language and literature in the State University, with the same salary as is paid in said University to other professors of the same grade.” The man to be chosen must be “some person learned in the Scandinavian language and literature, and at the same time skilled and capable of teaching the dead languages so called.”⁴²²

The motives of the makers of the law were benevolent enough, and circumstances warranted its passage, but nothing could better illustrate the utter carelessness and looseness with which American State legislators do their work, than this simple statute. It was drawn up by a distinguished American lawyer, Gordon E. Cole of St. Paul, at the request of Truls Paulsen by whom it was introduced into the legislature.⁴²³ It created a chair of “Scandinavian language,” when there is no such language, living or dead; the professorship was established “in the State University,” when the laws of the State recognize no institution bearing such a name. The Norwegian who presented the bill, the legislature (including twenty-one other Norwegians and Swedes) which passed it, and the Governor who signed it, all showed the same quality of ignorance and neglect of fact, law, and English. A second law, undoubtedly based directly upon the first, even to copying its confusion of terms, was the act passed by the legislature of North Dakota in 1891, creating a chair of Scandinavian language and literature in the University of North Dakota.⁴²⁴

Another statute having still more distinct Scandinavian earmarks was passed by the legislature of North Dakota in 1893, providing for tribunals of conciliation, to be composed of four commissioners of conciliation elected in each town, incorporated village, and city. The measure was modelled in a feeble and tentative fashion after a statute of Norway, where such courts have been in operation since 1824, proving especially efficient in securing amicable adjustment of petty neighborhood difficulties.⁴²⁵ But the law in North Dakota speedily fell into “innocuous desuetude,” in spite of the enormous percentage of Norwegians in that State; its construction was defective; its constitutionality was questioned; its machinery was cumbersome and expensive. During its first two years, many communities failed to elect commissioners, and no serious attempt was made to comply with its provisions; even the Norwegians themselves manifested no anxiety or haste to make use of this characteristically Norwegian court. Nor did the amendment of 1895, substituting for compulsory use of the tribunal hearings at the request of one party and with the consent of both parties, improve matters. One Norwegian attorney pronounced the law “an unmitigated absurdity under present conditions,” because most suits in the United States arise out of contracts, debts, titles, etc., rather than out of neighborhood quarrels, slanders, and the like.

In all matters relating to temperance and temperance legislation, the Scandinavian voters have almost invariably been on the side of restriction of the saloon and the liquor traffic. They have supported prohibition in Iowa and in the Dakotas, high license in Minnesota, and the patrol-limit system in Minneapolis.⁴²⁶ The prohibition State and local tickets, especially in Minnesota, and in the Dakotas, always have a large proportion of Norwegians and Swedes among their nominees.⁴²⁷ The best illustration of this sentiment, however, is to be found in the history of prohibition in North Dakota. When the new constitution for the proposed State was made and presented to the people in 1889, the section which provided for the absolute prohibition of both the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors was submitted separately to the voters. Thus the prohibition issue was presented fairly and squarely to every man in the State. The constitution itself was carried by a majority approximating twenty thousand in a total vote of upwards of thirty-five thousand; the prohibitionist section received a majority of 1159. Analysis of the vote by counties makes it clear that in every county where the Scandinavians predominated, with a single exception, the section was carried by fair majorities.⁴²⁸ The question of re-submission of this section to the vote of the people of the State came up in 1895, and was postponed indefinitely by the House of Representatives of the State of North Dakota by a vote of twenty-six to twenty-two, fourteen of the sixteen Scandinavian members of the House voting with the twenty-six.⁴²⁹ This seems to justify the opinion of the Secretary of State of North Dakota: “Nearly all Scandinavian members of the legislature have invariably voted against the resubmission of the question to the people… It is safe to say that at least three-fourths of the Scandinavian population of this State favor prohibition, and one-half of them are earnest advocates of the law.”⁴³⁰

The only remaining question as to the political influence of the Scandinavians is the claim of the Swedes and Norwegians for “recognition” at the hands of old parties; and the concessions which such claims have extorted. From the foregoing accounts, it is evident that the Scandinavians have been ready in fitting themselves into the political system of the United States. Altho they have not been guilty of that excessive and pernicious activity in the field of public affairs which has characterized some classes of immigrants settling by preference in the great cities, it must be admitted that they have now and then appealed to race pride and prejudice and jealousy, re-marking boundary lines and distinctions which should be obliterated. The practical politicians, on their part, have not hesitated to stir up, for party advantage, the sensitiveness of naturalized citizens to real or imaginary slights and discriminations against them by “the other party.”

The appeal of the Norwegian and Swedish press is not infrequently based frankly on the essential sentiment of clannishness: “Scandinavians in Superior and other places should always support a country man for election to public office,” and if he is in all ways worthy, “we should all together rally around him, lay aside all small considerations, and honor him with our trust and esteem.”⁴³¹ Ridiculing the narrowness of these “demands,” another editor, under the heading “From Norway, Birthplace of Giants,” suggests a full Republican ticket of Norwegians, including Rasmus B. Anderson, “Republican pro tem.,” and also a full Democratic ticket of Norwegians, including Rasmus B. Anderson, “thinking that he may next year be a Democrat again.”⁴³² This trick of asserting their political importance in the Northwestern States was very early learned; and so long as party managers bid for votes in the tongues of the aliens, bribing them with nominations of the foreign-born, just so long will these groups of adopted citizens reiterate and multiply their demands, just so long will they capitalize their voting power and collect a generous interest in the shape of nominations and appointments. It must not be supposed that the Norwegian and Swedish party papers in America exist for the primary purpose of forwarding the political interests of people of those nationalities as such, for they do not, any more than do the partisan papers printed in English, but the Scandinavian groups are so large and so definite that appeals to them to stand together as a race for their own interests are inevitable.

So early as 1870, one of the leading Norwegian newspapers declared that it was time for the Norwegians to get a Representative in Congress just as well as other nationalities – “ligesaavel som andre nationaliteter.”⁴³³ The editor suggested that the eight thousand Norse voters in the southern Minnesota district hold a convention the day before the regular Republican convention, and agree upon a candidate for the Congressional nomination: if the Republicans refused to nominate him, put on the screws! About twenty years later this very method was resorted to in North Dakota, when the Scandinavians of that State “in mass convention assembled,” proceeded to pass resolutions and to organize the Scandinavian Union of North Dakota, to secure for themselves “that share in the government to which their competency, their character and numerical strength, and their rank as pioneers in all matters of civilization entitle them.” While declaring that it believed that every man should stand or fall on his own merits, the convention resolved “that we have seen with deep regret the disposition of a large number of our fellow citizens in some parts of North Dakota to discriminate against us, because we are Scandinavians, and that an unprovoked war has been waged against us.”⁴³⁴ The Hon. M. N. Johnson, presiding officer, presumptive beneficiary of the Union, an aspirant for nomination as Representative, stated the case very frankly: “The Scandinavians constitute a majority of the Republican party in North Dakota. Under the territorial government they have not received many official favors, but with the opening of statehood it is proper that they should have some recognition. The Scandinavians are not disposed to leave the Republican Party. They are heartily loyal to the organization and its principles… We have the numerical strength to demand and secure justice, and all we ask is fair play… We are simply organizing our forces for united action in urging our just demands.”⁴³⁵ Their just demands consisted in “from three to five of the State officers, and if they stand together and attend the primaries, there is no doubt but that they will get what they ask for.”⁴³⁶

The effectiveness of this movement is sarcastically summed up by a correspondent of The North, in reporting the Republican convention: “M. N. Johnson’s Scandinavian League has evidently come out of the small end of the horn. To be sure M. N. was made the chairman of the convention and the dear Scandinavians got honorary mention in the resolutions: but M. N.’s chairmanship was evidently devoid of results beneficial to the Scandinavians, and as for resolutions – talk is cheap!”⁴³⁷

In an editorial in English Skandinaven discussed “Governor Sheldon’s Mistake” in 1893: “Upwards of one-third of the population of South Dakota is of Scandinavian birth or origin, while Scandinavians furnish not less than one-half of the Republican vote of the State. Governor Sheldon is apparently oblivious to this fact; for in making his appointments he saw fit to ignore the Scandinavian-American citizens of South Dakota. For the sake of the Republican party of the State this mistake is very much to be regretted. The Scandinavians are sensitive of their rights as American citizens… What has the Republican party of South Dakota done to Governor Sheldon that he should deal it such a dangerous blow?”⁴³⁸ Five years later the governor of Minnesota was accused of a like offence in that, on the State boards appointed by Governor Merriam, the Scandinavians were “insufficiently represented,” having only five out of one hundred members, or one-twenty-fifth, when they constituted one-third of the population of the State.⁴³⁹

The pettiness of these squabbles over political “recognition” and spoils is well illustrated by a letter written in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to a Minneapolis newspaper in 1889: “While our people here number over 3000, and the Irish only 1400, the latter hold a still larger percentage of offices than they do in your city. This year for the first time the Scandinavians (or more correctly speaking, the Danes) have succeeded in obtaining a place on the police force”!⁴⁴⁰

These insistent demands do not stop with simple recognition of the Scandinavian race: different sections must be satisfied. The most influential Swedish paper of the Northwest announced in 1890 that “what we on the other hand with full propriety and without the least danger of transgression can demand, is a man of Swedish descent at the head of one of our State departments… To deny them (Swedes) this just recognition would stir up bad feeling, and would be looked upon as a slight, not to say contempt… Our brethren, the Norwegians, are a little more numerous in Minnesota, than the Swedes, although not equally good Republicans. They, too, are entitled to a place on the State ticket, and for a long time have had one [Lieutenant Governor Rice].”⁴⁴¹

The failure of the Scandinavians to receive what some of them consider a just and due reward, one in proportion to their numbers and their devotion to one party, is not to be attributed wholly to the hardness of heart of the party leaders, nor to their shortsightedness. Nor can it be fairly charged to any strong dislike of Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes for each other: the Swedes, for example, have never bolted a ticket because it happened to be headed by a Norwegian.⁴⁴² In addition to the extension of religious antagonism into politics, “there is still another reason for the limited success of the Scandinavians in the political field, and that is their natural apathy [antipathy?] to following a leader. Each one considers himself competent to work on his own hook. To follow a leader seems incompatible with their ideas of liberty. Yet without union and without leaders, victory is impossible… ‘Everybody for himself, and the Devil for the hindmost’ is the law governing American life, and this the Irish have learned, while the Scandinavian is generally waiting for someone to come along and offer something with the polite ‘if you please.’ But he has to wait.”⁴⁴³

The Scandinavian press, in complaining of “a failure to get a due share of offices,” in declaring that Norwegians are “entitled to ten seats” in the Wisconsin legislature when they happen to have but three, or in insinuating that they have never been fittingly recognized in Iowa, resorts to political claptrap, often quite unworthy of the journal printing it. The facts so easily forgotten are that the counties and legislative districts in which the Scandinavians are a ruling majority are comparatively few, while the districts in which they are an influential minority are very many.⁴⁴⁴ The system of representation in the United States is not based on any racial divisions or class distinctions, and not until some scheme of minority representation is adopted can any foreign element get its “share” of the political plums. It would be hard to suggest a more dangerous and disrupting experiment, in these decades when aliens by the hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, enter the country and are incorporated into the body politic, than to attempt to “recognize” the various alien factors in complex public affairs, even if they were all as adaptable as the men from the Northlands. Nothing would do more, for example, to develop the latent religious and racial antipathies between the Scandinavians and the Irish. The fundamental assumption, therefore, which lies back of all claims for “recognition” of Swedish-Americans, or other hyphenated Americans, as such, savors of ward politics and the machine, rather than of political equity or right, and just so far as it does this it menaces social and political safety.