Imagens das páginas

during the decade 1900 to 1910, the percentage of increase was only about 30.7 per cent as compared with 38.5 per cent for the decade from 1880 to 1890. Nor has the percentage of foreignborn in our total population varied greatly during recent decades, ranging from 13.2 per cent in 1860 to 14.7 per cent in 1910, and at intermediate decades being 14.4 per cent, 13.3 per cent, 14.7 per cent, and 13.6 per cent. The ratio of male to female immigrants for the past decade appears appreciably larger than it is in fact, because so many male immigrants who would normally have sent for their families returned to Europe instead, during the panic period of 1907 and thereafter, and were counted once more when they returned unattended in better times; and because the number of domestics immigrating has latterly decreased largely, though concededly a larger number of the new immigrants than of the old come over unaccompanied by their families and are less disposed to send for them promptly.

Professor Fairchild, in support of his thesis that immigration was practically a negligible factor before 1820 during the building of the nation, quotes Professor Commons that “it is the distinctive fact regarding colonial migration that it was Teutonic in blood and Protestant in religion," and adds:

The English element, then, was sufficiently preeminent to reduce all other elements to its type. As a result of the character of the migration assimilation was easy, quick, and complete. . . . The whole coast, from Nova Scotia to the Spanish possessions in Florida, was one in all essential circumstances. Such, then, was the American people at the time of the Revolution-a physically homogeneous race composed almost wholly of native-born descendants of native-born ancestors, of a decidedly English type. . . upon which all subsequent additions must be regarded as extraneous grafts.

From historical investigations, however, we learn a different story. Bancroft, many years ago, said: "The United States. were severally colonized by men in origin, religious faith, and purposes as varied as their climes." Differences in language, customs, education, and views, on the one hand, and lack of assimilative agencies here, on the other, made the Germans, Swiss,

[blocks in formation]

'I quote from A. Maurice Low's stimulating work, The American PeopleA Study in National Psychology, vol. 1, p. 275, whose second volume contains particularly interesting chapters entitled "The Influence of Immigration on American Development" and "Manners and the Immigrant."

Swedes, Dutch, and Irish immigrants coming over before 1881 no whit less easy to assimilate than are the new immigrants in our own day: and the extent and degree of these differences and difficulties were emphasized again and again, about sixty years ago, by Know-nothings and their predecessors, in substantially the same terms used by the restrictionists, in our own day. In the former period the "Teutonic stock theory" was not available as a test of desirability of immigrants, because members of this great stock were then being abused by the provincialists, but today, consistency presumably requires that the Irish be placed in the Teutonic class.10

It has been well pointed out that, despite specious attempted distinctions between immigrants and colonists, we are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants here, all except the American Indian. Edward Everett, in a classic lecture on "The Discovery and Colonization of America and Immigration to the United States," delivered in 1853, sums up our entire history as an achievement of immigrants.

It is true that some sections of our country, notably New England, frowned upon all new arrivals, English or continental, Episcopalian as well as Catholic,11 but most of the colonies and states welcomed the immigrant and realized the advantages likely to be reaped from his coming. This issue has been raised ever since the beginning of our government. Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania, in describing the debates on the naturalization bill of 1790 in the United States Senate, amusingly said: "We Pennsylvanians act as if we believed that God made of one blood all the families of the earth; but the eastern people seem to think that he made none but New England folks." James Wilson, in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 12

cited Pennsylvania as proof of the advantages of encouraging immigration. It was perhaps the youngest (except Georgia) settled on the Atlantic, yet it was at least among the foremost in population and prosperity. He remarked that almost all the general officers of the

10 See Industrial Commission Reports, vol. 15, p. 489 et seq.; and Immigration Commission Reports, vol. 41, pp. 208-9, 221-5; also Hourwich, Immigration and Labor (Putnam, 1912), pp. 61-81.

"See Proper, Colonial Immigration Laws; Fairchild, Immigration; Capen, Historical Development of the Poor Laws of Connecticut.

"Documentary History of the Constitution, III, p. 509. Compare James Madison's statement in the same convention: "That part of America which had encouraged them [the foreigners] most, has advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture, and the arts."

Pennsylvania line of the late army were foreigners. And no complaint has ever been made against their fidelity or merit. Three of her deputies to the convention (Robert Morris, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and himself) were not natives.

The Declaration of Independence recited, as one of the grievances of the colonies against the king, that "he has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their immigration hither," and in August, 1776, Congress adopted a comprehensive committee report to the same effect.

But, to return to the non-English elements of our population at the beginning of our national government and in colonial days, the extent of this immigration and the difficulties of assimilation in that day have both been greatly minimized. We had no really comprehensive study of colonial censuses until Professor F. B. Dexter published his Estimates of Population in the American Colonies, in 1887; and no basis for scientific study of race-stocks, until the returns of the first census were published in detail and analyzed in A Century of Population Growth, in 1909. As most of our early American historians were New Englanders— and in New England the immigrant was comparatively unknown until very recently-it is natural that they should have underestimated the extent and influence of foreign factors before 1881. Professor William Z. Ripley, however, writing on "Races in the United States,"13 understates rather than overstates the facts, when he says, on the authority of Bancroft's History11 that "for the entire thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolution, we have it on good authority that one fifth of the population could not speak English, and that one half at least was not Anglo-Saxon by descent."


[blocks in formation]

15 Contrasting this with our present-day condition, we find that in 1900 only 1,217,280 of all our foreign-born residents over 10 years of age, or 12.2 per cent, could not speak English, which percentage had decreased from 15.6 per cent for 1890 (Imm. Comm. Reports, I, p. 160). This gives just about the same percentage now unable to speak English as at the time of the Revolution! The Census Bureau, solely on the basis of family names, estimated in A Century of Population Growth (pp. 116-121) that 82.1 per cent of our population in 1790 was of English stock, 7 per cent Scotch, 1.9 per cent Irish, 2.5 per cent Dutch, 0.6 per cent French, 5.6 per cent German, and 0.3 per cent "all others" (including, on the basis of the states for which we have actual returns, 1/20 of 1 per cent Hebrews). Professor A. B. Faust in his German Element in

Mr. Proper, in his valuable work Colonial Immigration Laws, deals with attempted colonial legal regulation of immigration, chiefly in the direction of attempting to exclude convicts (many thousands of whom arrived in the eighteenth century), and paupers, and the physically unfit, and how these efforts were largely thwarted by the Crown's veto power, as also by the British policy of discouraging immigration, shortly before the Revolution. Valuable historical legal material from England's point of view, supplementing this study, is to be found in William F. Craies' interesting article, "Compulsion of Subjects to Leave the Realm."16 Mr. Proper mentions, but does not consider in detail, the different nationalities included in our colonial immigration; calls attention to the fact (p. 70) that the Carolinas and Georgia "at the outbreak of the Revolution, had a greater number of foreign-born inhabitants than any other three of the colonies"; and concludes that (p. 84) "much that is best and noblest in America is a monument to the superior mental and physical constitution, the vigor and deep religious faith of the foreign immigrants” of colonial times.

As above noticed, the Irish figured as a considerable factor in our population even before 1790. Burke in his European Settlements in America refers to the large number of Irish settling in 1750-1754 in Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas; and many thereafter settled in Pennsylvania. The heavy colonial immigration of Irish, French, Spanish, and others, and of English and German Catholics, to say nothing of the sprinkling of Jews, also rebuts Professor Fairchild's assertion that the country at the close of the Revolution was homogeneously Protestant.17

the United States (I, pp. 280-5) estimates the German stock at the outbreak of the Revolution at 225,000 or a little more than one tenth of the total white population, and with the aid of Professor Walter F. Willcox estimated our German population in 1790 (II, pp. 5-27), also on the basis of family names, at 375,000, say 360,000, and of the Dutch at 240,000, or a total of 600,000, as compared with an estimate by the distinguished German statistician, Professor Bockh, of 800,000, or about 19 per cent of the total white population. Professor Faust calls attention to the inadequacy of a name test, even when made by an expert (II, p. 13), which results in disregarding many Anglicized names, such as Carpenter, Smith, Miller, etc. Moreover, only names occurring 100 times or more were included by the Census Bureau expert, and this leads to necessary omission of many names.

18 Law Quarterly Review, vol. 6, pp. 388-409.

17 See Gen. Walker's article, "Growth and Distribution of Population," in Harper and Brothers' First Century of the Republic; also Emmet, "Irish Immigration during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries," in Journal

In colonial days the heaviest race-stream was made up of the German immigrants. William Penn invited them to settle in Pennsylvania immediately after that territory was granted to him, and they became an important element in the population from the founding of Germantown in 1683, becoming very numerous after the Palatine persecutions early in the eighteenth century. Benjamin Rush wrote in 1789 a valuable and unbiased account18 of the German population before our first census. He quotes 19 Governor Thomas of Pennsylvania as saying in 1747 that the Germans of Pennsylvania were three fifths of the whole population (of 200,000) and that "they have, by their industry, been the principal instruments of raising the state to its present flourishing condition, beyond any of his Majesty's colonies in North America"-and nearly all came over as redemptioners or indentured servants. As early as 1790, five sixths of East Pennsylvania was German.20 Rush himself emphasizes their enormous value in developing agriculture throughout the colonies. Professor Geiser has correctly observed21 that from 1728 to the end of the century "the history of immigration is practically that of servants (indentured or redemptioners) under various conditions," a statement confirmed by Kapp,22 and it is shown by von

of the American Irish Historical Society, vol. II; O'Meagher, "Irish Immigration to the United States since 1790," idem, vol. IV; Byrne, Irish Emigration to the United States; Catholic Encyclopedia, article on "Migration" and bibliography and related articles; Callender, Selections from the Economic History of the United States; series on foreign elements in American history by Goebel, Colenbrander, Putnam, and Shepherd, in Report of the American Historical Association for 1909; series by Casson, in Munsey's Magazine, vols. 34, 35, on different elements in American history; Commons, Races and Immigrants in America; Schurz, "True Americanism," in Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers; Fosdick, French Blood in America; Flom, Norwegian Immigration into the United States; Learned, The Early Immigration and the Immigration Question of Today (Pa-German Soc. Pubs., XII); Grace Abbott, "Bulgarians of Chicago," Charities, vol. 21, p. 653; also her article on "Immigration," in The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911, as well as article on "Immigrants in Cities," by E. A. Goldenweiser, in same issue; also Bushee, Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston.

as Account of the Manners of the German Inhabitants of Pennsylvania, edited by I. D. Rupp.

[blocks in formation]

21 Redemptioners and Indentured Servants in the Colony and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pp. 25, 41.

Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the State of New York (1870), p. 9.

« AnteriorContinuar »