immigration in the 1800s essay

  • History Classics
  • Your Profile
  • Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
  • Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
  • This Day In History
  • History Podcasts
  • History Vault

U.S. Immigration Timeline

By: Editors

Updated: August 23, 2022 | Original: December 21, 2018

HISTORY: U.S. Immigration Timeline

The United States has long been considered a nation of immigrants, but attitudes toward new immigrants by those who came before have vacillated over the years between welcoming and exclusionary. Thousands of years before Europeans began crossing the vast Atlantic by ship and settling en masse, the first immigrants arrived in North America from Asia. They were Native American ancestors who crossed a narrow spit of land connecting Asia to North America at least 20,000 years ago, during the last Ice Age .

By the early 1600s, communities of European immigrants dotted the Eastern seaboard, including the Spanish in Florida, the British in New England and Virginia, the Dutch in New York, and the Swedes in Delaware. Some, including the Pilgrims and Puritans, came for religious freedom. Many sought greater economic opportunities. Still others, including hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans, arrived in America against their will.

Below are the events that have shaped the turbulent history of immigration in the United States since its birth.

White People of 'Good Character' Granted Citizenship

January 1776: Thomas Paine publishes a pamphlet, “ Common Sense ,” that argues for American independence. Most colonists consider themselves Britons, but Paine makes the case for a new American. “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe,” he writes.

March 1790: Congress passes the first law about who should be granted U.S. citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows any free white person of “good character,” who has been living in the United States for two years or longer, to apply for citizenship. Without citizenship, nonwhite residents are denied basic constitutional protections, including the right to vote, own property, or testify in court.

August 1790: The first U.S. census takes place. The English are the largest ethnic group among the 3.9 million people counted, though nearly one in five Americans are of African heritage.

Irish Immigrant Wave

1815: Peace is re-established between the United States and Britain after the War of 1812 . Immigration from Western Europe turns from a trickle into a gush, which causes a shift in the demographics of the United States. This first major wave of immigration lasts until the Civil War .

Between 1820 and 1860, the Irish —many of them Catholic—account for an estimated one-third of all immigrants to the United States. Some 5 million German immigrants also come to the United States, many of them making their way to the Midwest to buy farms or settle in cities including Milwaukee, St. Louis and Cincinnati.

1819: Many of newcomers arrive sick or dying from their long journey across the Atlantic in cramped conditions. The immigrants overwhelm major port cities, including New York City , Boston , Philadelphia and Charleston. In response, the United States passes the Steerage Act of 1819 requiring better conditions on ships arriving to the country. The Act also calls for ship captains to submit demographic information on passengers, creating the first federal records on the ethnic composition of immigrants to the United States.

1849: America’s first anti-immigrant political party, the Know-Nothing Party forms, as a backlash to the increasing number of German and Irish immigrants settling in the United States.

1875: Following the Civil War, some states passed their own immigration laws. In 1875 the Supreme Court declares that it’s the responsibility of the federal government to make and enforce immigration laws.

Chinese Exclusion Act 

1880: As America begins a rapid period of industrialization and urbanization, a second immigration boom begins. Between 1880 and 1920, more than 20 million immigrants arrive. The majority are from Southern, Eastern and Central Europe, including 4 million Italians and 2 million Jews . Many of them settle in major U.S. cities and work in factories.

1882: The Chinese Exclusion Act passes, which bars Chinese immigrants from entering the United States. Beginning in the 1850s, a steady flow of Chinese workers had immigrated to America.

They worked in the gold mines,and garment factories, built railroads and took agricultural jobs. Anti-Chinese sentiment grew as Chinese laborers became successful in America. Although Chinese immigrants make up only 0.002 percent of the United States population, white workers blame them for low wages.

The 1882 Act is the first in American history to place broad restrictions on certain immigrant groups.

1891: The Immigration Act of 1891 further excludes who can enter the United States, barring the immigration of polygamists, people convicted of certain crimes, and the sick or diseased. The Act also created a federal office of immigration to coordinate immigration enforcement and a corps of immigration inspectors stationed at principle ports of entry.

Ellis Island Opens

January 1892 : Ellis Island , the United States’ first immigration station, opens in New York Harbor. The first immigrant processed is Annie Moore, a teenager from County Cork in Ireland. More than 12 million immigrants would enter the United States through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954.

1907 : U.S. immigration peaks, with 1.3 million people entering the country through Ellis Island alone.

Photos: Immigration at Ellis Island

Ellis Island Immigration

February 1907: Amid prejudices in California that an influx of Japanese workers would cost white workers farming jobs and depress wages, the United States and Japan sign the Gentlemen’s Agreement. Japan agrees to limit Japanese emigration to the United States to certain categories of business and professional men. In return, President Theodore Roosevelt urges San Francisco to end the segregation of Japanese students from white students in San Francisco schools.

1910: An estimated three-quarters of New York City’s population consists of new immigrants and first-generation Americans.

New Restrictions at Start of WWI

1917: Xenophobia reaches new highs on the eve of American involvement in World War I . The Immigration Act of 1917 establishes a literacy requirement for immigrants entering the country and halts immigration from most Asian countries.

May 1924: The Immigration Act of 1924 limits the number of immigrants allowed into the United States yearly through nationality quotas. Under the new quota system, the United States issues immigration visas to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States at the 1890 census. The law favors immigration from Northern and Western European countries. Just three countries, Great Britain, Ireland and Germany account for 70 percent of all available visas. Immigration from Southern, Central and Eastern Europe was limited. The Act completely excludes immigrants from Asia, aside from the Philippines, at the time an American colony.

immigration in the 1800s essay

1924 : In the wake of the numerical limits established by the 1924 law, illegal immigration to the United States increases. The U.S. Border Patrol is established to crack down on illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican and Canadian borders into the United States. Many of these early border crossers were Chinese and other Asian immigrants, who had been barred from entering legally.

Mexicans Fill Labor Shortages During WWII

1942: Labor shortages during World War II prompt the United States and Mexico to form the Bracero Program , which allows Mexican agricultural workers to enter the United States temporarily. The program lasts until 1964.

1948: The United States passes the nation’s first refugee and resettlement law to deal with the influx of Europeans seeking permanent residence in the United States after World War II.

1952: The McCarran-Walter Act formally ends the exclusion of Asian immigrants to the United States.

1956-1957 : The United States admits roughly 38,000 immigrants from Hungary after a failed uprising against the Soviet Union . They were among the first Cold War refugees. The United States would admit over 3 million refugees during the Cold War.

1960-1962 : Roughly 14,000 unaccompanied children flee Fidel Castro ’s Cuba and come to the United States as part of a secret, anti-Communism program called Operation Peter Pan.

Quota System Ends

1965: The Immigration and Nationality Act overhauls the American immigration system. The Act ends the national origin quotas enacted in the 1920s which favored some racial and ethnic groups over others.

The quota system is replaced with a seven-category preference system emphasizing family reunification and skilled immigrants. Upon signing the new bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson , called the old immigration system “un-American,” and said the new bill would correct a “cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation.”

Over the next five years, immigration from war-torn regions of Asia, including Vietnam and Cambodia , would more than quadruple. Family reunification became a driving force in U.S. immigration.

April-October 1980 : During the Mariel boatlift , roughly 125,000 Cuban refugees make a dangerous sea crossing in overcrowded boats to arrive on the Florida shore seeking political asylum.

Amnesty to Undocumented Immigrants

1986: President Ronald Reagan signs into law the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which grants amnesty to more than 3 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

2001 : U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) propose the first Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would provide a pathway to legal status for Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States illegally by their parents as children. The bill—and subsequent iterations of it—don’t pass.

2012 : President Barack Obama signs Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which temporarily shields some Dreamers from deportation, but doesn’t provide a path to citizenship.

2017: President Donald Trump issues two executive orders aimed at curtailing travel and immigration from six majority Muslim countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia) as well as North Korea and Venezuela. Both of these so-called Muslim travel bans are challenged in state and federal courts.

2018: In April 2018, the travel restrictions on Chad are lifted. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court uphold a third version of the travel ban on the remaining seven countries.

Immigration Timeline, The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation . LBJ on Immigration, LBJ Presidential Library . The Nation's Immigration Laws, 1920 to Today, Pew Research Center . 1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Library of Congress .

immigration in the 1800s essay

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

Immigration and the American Industrial Revolution From 1880 to 1920

Charles hirschman.

Department of Sociology and Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3340

Elizabeth Mogford

Department of Sociology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9081

In this study, we measure the contribution of immigrants and their descendents to the growth and industrial transformation of the American workforce in the age of mass immigration from 1880 to 1920. The size and selectivity of the immigrant community, as well as their disproportionate residence in large cities, meant they were the mainstay of the American industrial workforce. Immigrants and their children comprised over half of manufacturing workers in 1920, and if the third generation (the grandchildren of immigrants) are included, then more than two-thirds of workers in the manufacturing sector were of recent immigrant stock. Although higher wages and better working conditions might have encouraged more long-resident native-born workers to the industrial economy, the scale and pace of the American industrial revolution might well have slowed. The closing of the door to mass immigration in the 1920s did lead to increased recruitment of native born workers, particularly from the South, to northern industrial cities in the middle decades of the 20 th century.

1. Introduction

Within the span of a few decades from the late 19 th to the early 20 th century, the United States was transformed from a predominately rural agrarian society to an industrial economy centered in large metropolitan cities. Prior to the American industrial revolution, most Americans were reared in largely isolated agricultural households and small towns that were linked to the external world by horse drawn wagons ( Olmstead and Rhode 2000 : 711). Except for towns that were connected to railroads or water borne shipping, isolation and the costs of overland transportation meant that many rural communities were largely self sufficient in food, clothing, and many other essentials of everyday life. This changed dramatically in the early decades of the 20 th century, as the supply and lowered costs of manufactured goods created a consumer revolution for both urban and rural households. Many of these goods, which did not even exist a few decades earlier, were manufactured, marketed, and transported through a rapidly expanding national network of rail lines and highways. By 1920, one half of northern farms had automobiles and telephones ( Olmstead and Rhode 2000 : 712–713).

Theses changes were the direct result of the American industrial revolution that was founded on rising investment, employment, and productivity in the manufacturing sector. In 1880, when the agricultural frontier had largely disappeared, almost one-half of the American workers were still farmers and only one in seven workers (less than 15%) worked in manufacturing of any sort. The industrial sector, as late as 1870, consisted primarily of small firms and workshops that relied on artisan technology to produce tools, furniture, building materials, and other goods for local markets ( Abramovitz and David 2000 : 45). Many small industries, such as grain mills and sawmills, were often located in rural areas close to flowing rivers in order to power machinery. Following the technological revolutions of the early industrial age, workshops and small foundries were supplemented by large factories engaged in mass production. The development of commercial electricity at the end of the 19 th century allowed industries to take advantage of the labor supply in large cities. The scale of change is illustrated by the rise in the share of manufacturing horsepower generated by electrical motors from 23% in 1909 to 77% in 1929 ( Goldin and Katz 1998 : 712).

Enormous gains in industrial productivity, accompanied by institutional change and much lower transportation costs, created national markets with goods and people moving in every direction. Perhaps the most consequential change of the American industrial revolution was the increasing urbanization of society and the shift of labor from farms to factories and offices ( Guest 2005 ). In 1880, workers in agriculture outnumbered industrial workers three to one, but by 1920, the numbers were approximately equal. Employment in the manufacturing sector expanded four-fold from 2.5 to 10 million workers from 1880 to 1920. 1

The decades surrounding 1900 were not only the age of industrialization in the United States, but were also the age of urbanization and immigration. The 1880s were the first decade in American history, with the exception of the Civil War decade, when the urban population increased more than the rural population (in absolute numbers). From 1880 to 1920, population growth was concentrated in cities—the urban fraction expanded from a little more than one quarter of the national population to more than one half ( Carter et al. 2006 : 1–105).

The pace of rural to urban migration of the native born picked up during this era, but domestic urbanward migrants were dwarfed by the flood of immigrants coming to cities. From 1880 to 1920, the number of foreign born increased from almost 7 million to a little under 14 million ( Gibson and Jung 2006 : 26). These figures, however, underestimate the economic and demographic contribution of immigration ( Kuznets 1971b ). Immigrants inevitably lead to a second generation—the children of immigrants—whose social, cultural, and economic characteristics are heavily influenced by their origins. Counting the 23 million children of immigrants 2 , in addition to the 14 million immigrants, means that over one-third of the 105 million Americans in the 1920 population belonged to the “immigrant community,” defined as inclusive of the first and second generations.

1.1 Immigration, Urbanization, and Industrialization

Immigrants, as well as manufacturing enterprises, were concentrated in the rapidly growing cities of the Northeast and Midwest during the age of industrialization ( Gibson and Jung 2006 : 72). In 1900, about three-quarters of the populations of many large cities were composed of immigrants and their children, including New York, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, Buffalo, Milwaukee, and Detroit ( Carpenter 1927 : 27). Immigration and industrialization were correlated, both spatially and temporally in American history ( Taeuber and Taeuber 1971 : 117), but is there a causal impact? Addressing this question, the objective of this analysis, requires consideration of the counterfactual of what would have been the course of the industrialization process in the United States if there had not been an immigrant workforce.

The most commonly cited reasons for the rapid American industrial revolution are the abundance of mineral resources, technological innovation, the evolution of the American system of manufacturing, railroads and lowered costs of transportation, education and human resources, and the rise of the managerial firm ( Abramovitz and David 2000 ; Chandler 1977 ; Denison 1974 ; Hounshell 1984 ; Wright 1990 ). Among the studies that address the relationship between immigration and industrialization, few go beyond a general or abstract discussion. In a classic survey of the literature on the American industrial revolution in the Cambridge Economic History of the United States , the role of immigration is summarized in a single paragraph, which simply notes the overrepresentation of immigrants in the manufacturing labor force ( Engerman and Sokoloff 2000 : 387). There are some studies that conclude that the flood of immigration in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries had an adverse impact on the per-capita economic growth, the wages of native workers, and diverted domestic migration away from industrializing cities ( Hatton and Williamson 1998 : Chapter 8; Goldin 1994 ). However, other researchers have questioned these conclusions and suggested that immigrants had a generally positive impact on the American economy and facilitated the economic mobility of native born workers during the age of industrialization ( Carter and Sutch 1999 ; Haines 2000 : 202; Muller 1993 : 83–85; Thomas 1973 : 174).

1.2 Research Objectives

In this study, we address two specific empirical questions, namely: “What was the role of immigration on changes in the industrial structure of the American economy from 1880 to 1920?”, and “How much did immigrants and their descendents (children and grandchildren) contribute to the manufacturing sector in 1920?” The findings reported here show that recent immigrants and their descendents were the primary workforce in the rapidly expanding manufacturing economy of the early 20 th century. Demographic and economic pressures on agricultural households in the late 19 th and early 20 th century pushed an increasing share of the children of farmers off the land, but only a minority were willing to join “the pool of eastern industrial and commercial labor” ( Atack, Bateman, and Parker 2000 : 322). When immigrant labor was cutoff in the 1920s, the native poor population, especially poor whites and blacks from the South, began migrating to northern industrial cities in much larger numbers. But in the early 20 th century, when manufacturing jobs were dirty, dangerous, and heavily regimented, immigrant workers were the mainstay of industrial employment.

Native born of native parentage (NBNP) Americans continued to be over-represented in the agricultural sector in the early 20 th century, but they were also well represented in many of the better jobs in the public and business sectors that were also expanding rapidly with the industrial economy. The managerial elite during the age of industrialization were almost exclusively native born whites ( Zunz 1982 : 2).

2. How Might Immigration Affect Industrialization

There is a long list of potential factors—variables or conditions—that might have caused the American industrial revolution, including the discovery or adoption of new technologies, the availability and mobility of capital, the expansion of markets as a result of new transportation systems, added demand from a growing population and the expansion of trade, increasing entrepreneurship, stable political and institutional systems that foster cheaper credit and the enforcement of contracts, improvements in human capital and meritocratic social mobility of talent, the increasing division of labor in production, and the specialization of enterprises (see Engerman and Gallman 2000 , especially volume 2). This list, which is neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, does not specify which factors are exogenous nor does it address the question of which factors are absolutely necessary and which may simply facilitate economic growth and industrialization.

Without a comparative analysis across countries or regions, it is impossible to test which factors were necessary or sufficient conditions to cause industrialization. Such studies are not always definitive, however, because labor, capital, and other resources can flow across regions and countries. The analytical strategy adopted here is of a detailed case study of one country, the United States, with a primary focus on measuring the increasing share of immigrants and their descendents in the mobilization of labor during the American industrial revolution from 1880 to 1920. The counterfactual, namely whether the domestic labor supply would have been sufficient for rapid industrial development in the absence of immigration, cannot be directly observed. Our strategy, which draws on theory and prior research in addition to empirical analysis, cannot fully adjudicate between competing explanations. Our conclusion about the centrality of immigrant labor is based on the fact that recent immigrants and their descendents were not just the majority of industrial workers, but the overwhelming majority of workers in the emerging manufacturing sector in early 20 th century America.

2.1 Economic Theory

Labor is an indispensable source of economic production, and all other things being equal, more labor contributes to more economic production. The magnitude of the impact of immigration on economic growth and welfare depends on the availability of physical capital, the human capital of immigrants and natives, and assumptions about economies of scale ( Frieberg and Hunt 1995 : 39–42; Smith and Edmonston 1997 : chapter 4). Although there was neither a slackening of economic growth nor a slowdown in the trend of rising wages of native born workers during the age of mass immigration in the late 19 th and early 20 th century ( Carter and Sutch 1999 : 314–344; Rees 1961 ), Hatton and Williamson (1998 : chapter 8) argued that wages would have grown even faster in the absence of immigration. Differences in the interpretation (or speculation) of the economic impact of immigration are typically based on assumptions of possible effects rather than on measured differences. There is a wide range of mechanisms through which immigrants may affect labor markets and the economy, more generally.

One of the most fundamental effects of immigration is an increase in the number of workers relative to dependents in the population. Immigrants are generally concentrated in the younger working ages. Carter and Sutch (1999 : 326) observe that well over 70% of immigrants to the United States during the peak years of the age of mass immigration (1907 to 1910) were between age 18 and 40. Even within the working-age population, immigrants are more likely to participate in the labor force than the native born population. The age selectivity of immigrants reduces the costs of social reproduction for a given population size in the receiving society. Although the costs of support for the dependent population of children and the elderly are generally borne privately by families, there are also public subsidies for education and health care. The costs of rearing and educating persons who immigrate as young adults have been borne by their foreign-resident families and their countries of origin, and might be considered a transfer payment to the taxpayers of the receiving society. 3

In an ingenious analysis of the potential impact of the differing age composition of immigrants and the native born populations, Neal and Uselding (1972) estimate the savings received by the United States through immigration from 1790 to 1913 relative to the costs that would have been incurred if all immigrants were replaced by children of the native born population (this counterfactual is posed by the “Walker hypothesis” that posits that native born fertility was depressed by the arrival of immigrants). Assuming these savings had been invested (not consumed by social reproduction), Neal and Uselding (1972 : 87) conclude that immigration had contributed from 13 to 42 percent of the capital stock of the United States by 1912. Several analysts have noted that the large number of immigrants in the North in the 1860s provided the manpower surplus that allowed the Union to triumph in the Civil War ( Gallman 1977 : 31, Muller 1993 : 78–79).

2.2 Empirical Studies

In their study of the impact of immigration on American industrialization and native born workers, Hatton and Williamson (1998 : chapter 8) asked whether immigrants accelerated industrialization by solving labor bottlenecks by entering high-wage high-growth occupations faster than native born workers ( Hatton and Williamson 1998 : 161–164). Based on their findings that immigrants were more likely to be found in less skilled occupations and in slower growth occupations from 1890 to 1900, Hatton and Williamson conclude that immigration did not contribute to economic development and rapid industrialization. However, other analysts report that immigrants were no less skilled than native born workers ( Schachter 1972 ). The real question, in our judgment, is not the skill level of immigrants, but their role in filling the demand for labor in manufacturing and other key sectors of emerging industrial economy. The central element of the industrial revolution is most appropriately measured by shifts across industrial sectors – the rise of manufacturing, in particular.

The other problem with Hatton and Williamson’s account is their focus on relative growth as the index of labor demand. Starting from a small base (or zero), new industries may experience extraordinarily rapid relative growth, but the absolute number of added workers may be relatively small. For example, the telephone industry grew over 80 times faster than the workforce as a whole from 1880 to 1920, but the total growth was only a quarter of a million workers. On the other hand, the manufacturing sector grew much less rapidly—only about 2.4 times as fast as the work force as a whole, but added about 7.5 million workers. Are immigrant workers in manufacturing not to be considered part of the “shock troops of structural change” ( Hatton and Williamson 1998 : 161) simply because of their relative share in the growth in selected high demand occupations? The contribution of immigrants might be evaluated differently if the absolute numbers of workers in expanding industries were counted. In this analysis, we consider the contribution of immigrants to absolute and relative changes in the industrial structure.

One of the most important theoretical claims about the positive impact of immigration on industrialization centers on the creation of economies of scales—both in the production of and the demand for industrial goods ( Abramovitz and David. 2000 : 12; Carter and Sutch 1999 : 331–332; Romer 1996 ). The creation of economies of scale was possible only with the growth of cities and urban industries. Before the age of industrialization, per-capita productivity was rarely increased by having large numbers of workers concentrated in one location ( Ward 1971 : 90). Artisan labor in most industries, such as grain milling, iron working, and leather goods, did not rely on a complex division of labor. Overall, there were few advantages of locating a factory in large cities. The important considerations for site location were access to sources of raw materials, nearby flowing water, and transportation. There is some evidence that some “non-mechanized” factories in the mid 19 th century were more productive than artisan shops, but these factories were distinctive in employing women and children (e.g. textiles), and economies of scale were only significant for factories with about 20 or fewer employees ( Engerman and Sokoloff 2000 : 375).

With electricity to power machinery, it became possible to redesign the organization of factories to create an integrated flow of work (assembly lines) to take advantage of a larger number of workers in one location. Larger factories were located in cities where labor was more plentiful. And cities were disproportionately the home of immigrants. Even in 1850, when only 15% of the American population lived in cities, more than one-third of the population of most large American cities was foreign born. Assuming that second generation immigrants (the children of immigrants) were as numerous as the foreign born, it seems reasonable to conclude that almost all large American cities were predominantly composed of immigrants and their children as early as 1850 ( Gibson and Jung: 2006 : 82). 4

In the middle decades of the 19 th century, new immigrants were the ready source of labor to unload ships, to build roads and canals, and to transport goods ( Carter 2006 : I-590-591). With the growth of factories and the demand for unskilled labor, immigrants, primarily young men in the working years, continued to be the ideal source of labor. Immigrants were generally more willing to accept lower wages and inferior working conditions than native born workers ( Zolberg 2006 : 69). Great efficiencies in production led to higher profits that could be reinvested in new technology, which led to even more production and eventually higher wages for workers.

Although the demand for manufactured goods gradually grew to encompass the entire country, the initial demand was from the urban population. Unlike farm families that were largely self sufficient in food and made most of their clothing, urban families needed to purchase everything in the market. The large and growing urban populations, primarily fueled by immigration throughout the second half of the 19 th century and the first two decades of the 20 th century, created a huge demand for the increased production of the emerging industrial sector. Carter and Sutch (1999 : 330–331) claim that economies of scale in demand and production also stimulated inventive activity and the diffusion of technological knowledge and innovation. In his analysis of long swings, or Kuznets cycles, Easterlin (1968) found that immigration (and population growth) and subsequent family formation stimulated economic growth through increasing demand for housing, urban development, and other amenities. This association was strongest, Easterlin noted, in the century prior to World War II. In the post World War II era, the federal government assumed more responsibility for maintaining aggregate demand regardless of population dynamics.

If capital is fixed, additional immigrant labor would lead to lowered productivity as capital stocks are spread more thinly and as less capital is invested per worker (capital dilution). However, there is some evidence that capital follows the international movements of labor, especially in labor scarce economies ( Hatton and Williamson 1998 : 214–215). In addition to international capital flows, immigrants are thought to save a higher proportion of their incomes than native born workers. Much of this savings is remitted to family and kin in their countries of origin, but there is also evidence that immigrants purchase homes, open small businesses and invest heavily in the education of their children. These claims suggest that immigrants contribute to economic growth by increasing the supply of (or attracting) capital as well as the supply of labor. Rosenberg (1972 : 32–33) concludes that immigrants to the United States also brought European technology that increased the productivity of American industry.

Carter and Sutch (1999 : 323) review the historical evidence on the debate over immigration and capital dilution at the turn of the 20 th century, with a focus on the claim that immigrants increased the returns to capital (and hence capitalists), but harmed the economic fortunes of native born workers. They conclude that the division between capital and labor was not as clear cut as many assume. A substantial share of American workers owned capital through home ownership and as operators of farms and small shops. About half of American households in 1905 might have been considered as equity investors through their ownership of insurance policies that were self-financed pensions ( Ranson and Sutch 1987 cited in Carter and Sutch 1999 : 323).

3. Data and Measurement

The decennial census data analyzed here have been extracted from the IPUMS (Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples) files that have been produced and distributed by researchers at the University of Minnesota ( Ruggles et al. 2004 ). The IPUMS files are created by extracting samples of household records and all persons in sampled households from the original manuscript (microfilm) records. The samples of the IPUMS census files are sufficiently large to reproduce, within the range of sampling error, published figures in the original census reports. Moreover, the IPUMS files, with complete individual (and family) unit records, can be recoded and tabulated, limited only by the scope and detail of the original census questions and classifications. In addition to the standard census variables, the IPUMS files also contain many new recoded variables to facilitate comparisons across censuses ( Sobek 2001 ).

Although the classification of workers by industrial sectors is sometimes conflated with occupations, these two dimensions of work are conceptually distinct. Industries refer to product produced or service delivered (by a firm or family run enterprise) while occupations refer to actual work activities and skills of workers ( Sobek 2006 , Sutch 2006 ). There is overlap in some categories – most farmers (occupations) work in the agricultural sector, but there are significant differences in the wide range of occupations (e.g., unskilled labor, clerical workers, managers) for those who work in the manufacturing, construction, and retail trade sectors.

The process of industrialization is associated with industrial restructuring as well as changes in the skills and actual tasks performed by workers. We focus on the shifts in the industrial distribution of workers because technological and organizational change typically results in the origin, growth, decline, and disappearance of businesses and forms of production. As agricultural productivity increased, workers were drawn into manufacturing and services.

Shifts in occupations and the division of labor are likely to be derivative of the changes in industrial structure and technological change. As factories replaced farms (the prototypical shift in the organization of work), many new occupations were created. Aside from the link to industrial structure, there is less theoretical clarity in the expected changes in occupations with industrialization. A widespread assumption is that technological change leads to an upgrading of occupational skills. However, early mass production probably led to a replacement of skilled craft workers with unskilled production workers. Goldin and Katz (1998) argue that this process was reversed in the years around World War I when technological change may have had a pro skill bias. Regardless of changes in the content of nonfarm occupations, the shift from farming to factory work was probably not considered as a step upward, or to a more technologically challenging job, by farmers. 5 In addition to their autonomy, farmers have to master a number of trades including animal husbandry, crop management, and the entrepreneurial activities of buying and marketing. With our focus on industrial sectors, we attempt to capture the direct impact of industrialization on the structure of the labor force without additional assumptions of the skill levels or status of workers.

3.1 A Detailed Industrial Classification

For this analysis, we rely on the IPUMS variable “IND 1950,” which represents a recoding of the reported industries from each decennial census from 1850 to 2000 to the 1950 census industry classification (for additional details, see ). The industry question was first asked in the 1910 census. For prior censuses, IND 1950 was inferred from responses to the census question on occupations. The IND 1950 classification consists of 152 detailed (three-digit) categories plus “nonclassifiable” and “industry not reported” categories. 6 Detailed industrial categories are generally nested within primary (one digit) and secondary (two digit) categories. The classification includes some detailed industries that emerged from technological change over time. For example, the detailed category #376 “Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment” did not include any workers until the 1910 census.

Any study of industrial change must attempt to reconcile the need for detail revealed by the tertiary level categories with the need for parsimony evident in the broader categories. The summary industrial classification used here is ad hoc, reflecting elements of both principles with the objective of understanding the creation and expansion of specialized industries during the Age of Industrialization. Two major sectors, AGRICULTURE and CONSTRUCTION, are only reported at the primary level, while TRADE is shown for only the two major secondary levels: WHOLESALE TRADE and RETAIL TRADE. The other primary sectors are subdivided into their detailed (tertiary) industries, though quite a few of the detailed categories have been aggregated. Our primary emphasis is on the MANUFACTURING sector which includes all secondary level categories and most of the tertiary industries. Following Singlemann (1978 : 31), we reorganized the very heterogeneous SERVICE sector into three new major categories: BUSINESS SERVICES, PERSONAL SERVICES, and SOCIAL SERVICES. Our final classification is displayed in Appendix 1 .

4. Changes in the Industrial Structure and Immigrant Participation: 1880 to 1920

Our first objective is to describe changes in the industrial structure of the gainful workforce from 1880 to 1920, and the share of recent immigrants and their descendents in this industrial transformation. Figure 1 shows the dramatic changes in the structure of the workforce in 1880 and 1920 for the 9 major industrial sectors. The single most striking change was the decline in agriculture (from 48 to 25% of the workforce) and the rise of manufacturing employment (up from 14 to 25%). There are also significant increases in the proportions working in mining, transportation and utilities, trade, producer services and social services. There was relative stability (from 4.6 to 4.8%) in construction, and a relative decline of employment in personal services (from 11.5 to 9.5%).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms108728f1.jpg

Industrial Structure of Workforce: 1880 & 1920

The source percentages in Figure 1 are presented for detailed industry categories in the first two columns in Table 1 , which provides an overview of the growth and transformation of the American workforce from 1880 to 1920. Columns 3 and 4 show the absolute and relative growth of workers in each industry over the forty years. Columns 5 and 6 show the immigrant share (both first and second generation) of each industrial sector. The final column shows the ratio of the growth of immigrant workers to the overall growth (or decline) of workers in each industry from 1880 to 1920.

Industrial Structure of the Work Force of Gainful Workers, by Immigrant (1st and 2nd Generation) Generation: United States, 1880 to 1920

Sources: 1880 and 1920 PUMS from Ruggles et al. (2004)

Notes: Gainful workers in 1880 not reporting an industry (codes 997/998) are disributed prorata by the industry of their reported occupation.

(1). Percentage by Major and Selected Industrial Sectors of Employment of 1880 Total Labor Force.

(2). Percentage by Major and Selected Industrial Sectors of Employment of 1920 Total Labor Force.

(3). Change (in thousands) in Absolute Number of Workers, by Industrial Sector from 1880 to 1920.

(4). Ratio of the Pecent Change from 1880 to 1920 of Each Industrial Sector to the Percent Change of the Total Work Force from 1880 to 1920 (123%).

(5). Percent Immigrant (first and second generation) of Workers, by Industrial Sector in 1880

(6). Percent Immigrant (first and second generation) of Workers, by Industrial Sector in 1920

(7). Ratio of the Change in the Absolute Number of Immigrants (first and second generation) to the Absolute Change of Workers in Each Industry from 1880 to 1920.

Although we consider these data comparable to the labor force during this period, technically, the data refer to gainful workers or all persons who reported a “gainful occupation” in the census enumeration ( Bancroft 1958 : Appendix C; Carter 2006 : 1–2 – 1–14). Accordingly, we refer to the gainful working population as the workforce, which does not connote the precision of the modern labor force concept and measurement.

Rapid growth and structural transformation are the two major trends in the American workforce from 1880 to 1920. The number of gainful workers in the United States more than doubled from 1880 to 1920 (18.1 to 40.5 million). 7 Even more significant was the shift from an employment structure centered on agriculture to a much more diversified industrial employment structure. These patterns are illustrated with summary measures of “absolute growth” (indexed by the increase in the number of workers in the industry from 1880 to 1920) and “relative growth” (indexed by dividing the absolute growth in each industry by the expected growth, assuming that every industry grew at the same rate as the national workforce). A relative growth index value of 1.0 means the particular industry grew at the same rate as the national workforce (which more than doubled). A value of less than 1.0 means the industry experienced a below-average growth rate, and values greater than 1.0 above-average growth for the sector.

In 1880, at the eve of the age of mass migration and when almost half of the workforce was in the agricultural sector, immigrants and their children comprised about one-third of all workers. We include the second generation (the children of immigrants) as part of the immigrant community because they are reared and socialized by their foreign born parents and would not have been in the United States except for the migration of their parents. 8 The immigrant share increased to 40 percent of the workforce in 1920. Almost half of the total growth of 22 million workers from 1880 to 1920 can be attributed to the increase of first and second generation immigrant workers (the last column of Table 1 ).

4.1 Agriculture

For the first century after the nation’s founding, the United States was an agricultural society, and most American farms were small scale household enterprises that relied on family labor. In the early 19 th century, upwards of two-thirds of the working population was employed in agriculture ( Taeuber and Taeuber 1971 : 175). At the turn of the twentieth century, nearly two-thirds of Americans lived on farms or in villages and towns of less than five thousand residents ( Katz and Stern 2006 : 8). Throughout the 19 th century, government priorities and spending reflected the dominance of rural and agricultural interests. One of the landmark expansions of the federal government was the Morrill Act of 1862, which created the Department of Agriculture and authorized the founding of land grant colleges ( Carter et al. 2006 : 4–24; Atack, Bateman, and Parker 2000 : 273).

From 1880 to 1920, agriculture added 2.1 million more workers (mostly prior to 1900), but the rate of growth in agriculture was only one-tenth (0.1) of the overall growth rate of the national workforce. By 1920, only one in four American workers remained in agriculture, and the American economy was increasingly centered in urban factories and offices rather than on farms. Although many immigrants were drawn to the agricultural frontier in the 18 th and 19 th centuries, only one of every five farmers was an immigrant or the child of an immigrant during the age of mass immigration from 1880 to 1920.

4.2 Manufacturing and Related Industries

The largest shift in the American workforce from 1880 to 1920 was the expansion of manufacturing employment from 14 to almost 25 percent of the workforce. If mining and construction were combined with manufacturing, one-third of Americans were industrial workers in 1920. Manufacturing employment grew more than twice as fast as the workforce as a whole from 1880 to 1920. In absolute terms, the manufacturing sector expanded from 2.5 to 10 million workers.

Within the manufacturing sector, the largest increases were registered in metals (iron and steel), which grew from 1.3 to 3.7% of the workforce, and in machinery, which grew from 0.7 to 5.0% of the workforce. Closely related to this was the expansion of coal mining (used to produce steel) from 0.5 to 2.1% of workers. More than one out of ten workers in the American economy in 1920 were producing steel, extracting the raw materials used to produce steel, or making machinery from steel (e.g., automobiles). 9 The Chemical/Petroleum/Rubber sector, which included the automobile related industries of tire manufacturing and gasoline production, grew from 0.2 to 1.6% of workers.

Another important shift was the rise in apparel (clothing) manufacturing from 0.3 to 1.1% of workers, which paralleled the decline of relative workers in dressmaking shops (listed under Personal Services) from 1.3 to 0.6% of the workforce. In the early 20 th century, American women and men were able for the first time to buy inexpensive manufactured (ready made) dresses, shirts, and suits, and there was less dependence on home made and hand tailored clothing. With less expensive ready made clothing, fashions changed as well. Men and women replaced simple cloaks with fitted coats ( Cahan 1917 ).

The rapid growth of manufacturing from 1880 to 1920 relied heavily on immigrant labor. In the latter part of the 19 th century, the cotton manufacturing industry and the iron and steel industry relied heavily on “old immigrants” from Great Britain and Northwestern Europe, but in the early decades of the 20 th century, the rapid growth of these industries became increasingly dependent on “new immigrants” from Southern and Eastern Europe ( Perry 1978 ).

More than one-half of the net growth of 7.5 million workers in manufacturing from 1880 to 1920 was due to the increase of first and second generation workers over this period. The immigrant share was significant in all manufacturing industries, but proportionally less in wood and mineral products and a few other categories. Immigrants provided the majority of added workers in the rapidly growing iron and steel industry, machinery manufacturing, and textiles and apparel. The dominance of the Eastern European immigrants in apparel manufacture (and trade) in New York City is well known ( Kahan 1978 ), but immigrants were also over-represented in mining and construction and throughout the heavy industries in the Northeast and Midwest.

4.3 Transportation, Communications, and Utilities

The consequences of expansion in the manufacturing sector rippled through other sectors. This led to major changes in the organization of the economy and the structure of employment. The distribution of goods from manufacturing plants to households also required massive investments and expansion in transportation, communications, retailing, and a supportive institutional structure for the expansion of business, and an increasingly urban society. A governmental bureaucracy was needed to build roads, manage cities, and to educate the population for employment in factories and offices.

The transportation and communication sector added more than 2.3 million workers from 1880 to 1920, of which 1.2 million were added to the railway and railroad sector alone. The two million workers employed in the railroads and railway sector in 1920 comprised 5% of the total workforce. The telegraph was the only means of rapid long-distance communication in 1880 and the small number of workers employed in the sector (about 27,000) reflected the limited role of long distance communications (there were an additional 26,000 workers employed in postal services). By 1920, a brand new communications industry—the telephone—grew from zero to 279,000 workers or about 0.7 of the 1920 workforce. 10

Immigrants played an important role in the growing transportation and communications sector, but their role was secondary to the 3 rd and higher generation population—the NBNP (Native Born of Native Parentage) population. For example, nearly two-thirds of the added workers in railroads were 3 rd and higher generation Americans. There was a great boom in railroad construction in late 19 th century America. By 1899, “every major city had a rail head that was connected to the national system” ( Cain 2006 : 4–771; also see Mayer 1989 : 928). The geographic dispersion of railroads, and relatively good wages in the industry, undoubtedly pulled many descendents of the native born workers into the railroad sector.

4.4 Wholesale and Retail Trade

The enormous outpouring of goods from the nation’s factories had to be distributed and sold, mostly to domestic markets. Wholesale trade added almost 600,000 workers from 1880 to 1920, and retail trade grew by almost 2.4 million workers. One of every eight American workers in 1920 was employed in retail or wholesale trade—about one-half of the size of the manufacturing sector.

The late 19 th century witnessed the beginnings of mass retailing and the emergence of department stores in large cities ( Ward 1971 : 94; Raff 2006 : 4–706). Although most studies in the business literature focus on larger firms, most retail enterprises were probably small family owned stores. As late as 1899, the number of proprietors in retail sales was approximately equal to the number of employees in the sector ( Carter et al. 2006 : 4–713). The rapid growth of workers in sales were most likely employed in very small shops or as peddlers who sold goods to farm families and other households in scattered rural communities. The availability of new manufactured goods, linked by an expanding transportation system and a network of wholesale and retail enterprises, created a national market for consumer goods that would gradually supplant home production

Immigrants, especially the second generation, provided for about half of the added workers in trade from 1880 to 1920, primarily in general merchandise, food, and apparel stores. Immigrant merchants were often reputed to create new markets through peddling goods to remote regions and in extending credit to people without accumulated savings.

4.4 Services

The very heterogeneous collection of service industries is reorganized here to emphasize the key distinctions between producer, personal, and social services ( Singlemann 1978 ). Producer services include banking, insurance, real estate, accounting, and other business services that play an important intermediary role in urban and industrial economies. Social services include education, health care, public administration, and other services that are generated by the government to meet the collective needs of communities and individuals. Personal services is the residual category and corresponds most closely to the image of service occupations, and it includes private household workers, dressmakers, and shoe repair shops. This sector also includes repair services (including auto repair), and entertainment services (including movie theaters and recreation). There is a certain amount of arbitrariness in all industrial classifications, including this one. Hotels and lodging places are classified as a personal service, but eating and drinking establishments are considered as part of the retail trade sector.

Concurrent with the creation of an industrial society from 1880 to 1920 was the expansion of business and the beginnings of public provision of education, health care, and welfare – these are evident in the increases of workers in producer services and social services. As business and social services expanded from 1880 to 1920, personal services declined. The decline of personal services was primarily of private household workers (domestics), which declined from 7 to just over 4% of workers from 1880 to 1920. There were also relative declines in some other traditional personal services (dressmaking and repair services), but increases in some “modern” personal services, such as auto repair services, hotels, and the theatre and motion picture industry.

Producer services grew almost 4 times as fast as the overall workforce from 1880 to 1920, and more than doubled their relative share from 1.6 to 4.1% of all workers. The largest components of the increase in producer services were in banking, insurance, real estate, and related business services ( Ward 1971 : 99). The absolute number of workers in these business industries is small, but rapid expansion reflects the increasing complexity of an industrial economy. The efficient management and coordination of large firms and corporations required a growing army of accountants, bookkeepers, and other office personnel.

The relative growth of social services from 3.2 to 6.9% was fueled by increasing numbers of teachers, health and hospital workers, and governmental employment at all levels, including postal workers. The expansion of government services was shaped by the increasing urbanization of the population. The concentration of people in cities made it easier to provide proximate access to schooling, health care, and other services including transportation, sanitation, and public safety. Custom, kinship networks, and voluntary associations are often sufficient to satisfy collective welfare needs in low density settlements and rural areas, but the growth of government appears to be an inevitable concomitant of an urban and industrial society. Government employment grew from 3 to 5 times faster than the workforce as a whole.

As the new service industries, including education, government employment, and business services, grew from 1880 to 1920, the second generation participated proportional to their numbers, but 3 rd and higher generation Americans were the majority of added workers. This was particularly true in social service fields such as health, education, the post office, and government employment more generally. By and large, these were good jobs that required educational credentials and social capital, which immigrants were much less likely to possess.

The growth of professional employment in the service economy was a natural accompaniment of the expansion and development. Perhaps, immigrants were more likely to “push up” native born workers than to crowd them out. Michael Haines (2000 : 202) observes that as immigrants occupied “a disproportionate share of the lower skill and lower status positions, they made possible, in some sense, the better-paid higher status occupations of the native white population.” This interpretation has also been made by Lieberson (1980 : chapter 10) in his theory of labor market queues. Lieberson’s focus was on the concentration of African Americans in the least desirable occupations in 1900, as they had few resources and encountered the greatest discrimination in northern labor markets. Although new immigrants were ahead of African Americans in most labor queues, the growth of the overall labor market through immigration created demand for managerial, professional, and clerical employment that was more likely to be filled by older stock white Americans than by immigrants or African Americans.

5. A Model to Estimate the 3rd Generation Immigrants by Industry

The underlying question that motivates this analysis is the impact of immigration on the transformation of the American economy from a primarily agrarian structure to one based on manufacturing and associated industries. Would it have been possible to have had the American industrial revolution without immigrants? Or alternatively, would the industrial revolution have been smaller, slower, or more costly? In the prior section, we focused on the magnitude and economic roles of the first and second generation immigrant population. In this section, we extend the analysis with an estimate of magnitude of 3 rd generation immigrants—the grandchildren of immigrants and their economic roles.

The grandchildren of immigrants are unlikely to have attachments to their ancestral homeland and are probably well assimilated into American society. If we desire to attribute the 3 rd generation as part of the immigrant contribution, the skeptical reader may wonder why we do not also count the 4 th and higher generations as also part of the immigrant share. Clearly, there is a thin line from “reasonable” assumptions to a reductio ad absurdum argument that the immigrant contribution includes all Americans. Our claim is that 3 rd generation immigrants in the early 20 th century are the recent descendants of European immigrants who were more likely to have settled in cities than to have moved to the agricultural frontier. In 1880, one-third of all workers were composed of first and second generation immigrants and most lived in cities. We assume that 3 rd generation immigrants were much more likely to have been exposed to emerging opportunities in the urban industrial economy than older stock native born Americans in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.

In this section, we present the methods and results of a “Shift-Share” estimation (akin to indirect standardization) of the industrial structure of the grandchildren of immigrants in 1920. There are two components to estimate: immigration generations and the industrial structure by immigrant generation. We first address the measurement of immigration generations.

The 1920 work force can be divided into two components: immigrants (counting both the foreign born and the second generation) and the native born of native parentage (NBNP). Although the NBNP population is typically assumed to reflect a society without immigration, the distinction between the immigrant and NBNP populations is not fixed, since the 3 rd and higher order generation descendents of immigrants are counted as part of the native born population. Since immigrants were disproportionately living in cities and held industrial jobs in 1880, it seems plausible to assume that their grandchildren are probably over-represented in industrial employment in 1920 relative to the grandchildren of the 1880 NBNP Population.

The logic of our analytical approach is diagrammed in Figure 2 . The two columns represent the 1880 and 1920 work force by immigrant generation. In both years, we can measure only three generational groupings: (1) the foreign born, (2) the second generation—the children of immigrants, and (3) third and higher generations—NBNP. The 1920 workforce is composed of some 1880 workers (those age 20 in 1880 would be age 60 in 1920), the descendants of the 1880 population, and recent immigrants and their descendants. It is impossible to make precise estimates of generational continuity and succession because of the complexity of demographic structure and changes, including variations in age structure, labor force exits and entries, mortality, and differential fertility ( Duncan 1966a ). Although most workers in 1880 would have retired (or died) before 1920, some are still working. Some 1880 workers have no children (or no working children) 40 years later, while other 1880 workers may have been “replaced” by one or more descendents.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms108728f2.jpg

The Demographic Components of the 1920 Gainful Workforce

Nonetheless, we can provide a crude estimate of the contribution of recent immigration to the 1920 workforce with several simplifying assumptions. The first assumption is that the majority of the first and second generation workers in 1920 were recent immigrants. Some of these immigrants (or their parents) may well have arrived before 1880. Thus, the label of “recent immigrants” is somewhat broader than the 1880 to 1920 period. The estimation of the third generation requires even more heroic assumptions about the fraction of the 1920 third and higher generation workers (NBNP) that are descendents of immigrants in 1880.

The analytical task is illustrated in Figure 2 , by the dashed line that identifies the 1920 3 rd generation from the broader category of the 3 rd and higher generation population. To do this, we assume that the ratio of the 3 rd generation population (grandchildren of immigrants) to the 3 rd and higher generation population in 1920 is proportional to the ratio of the 2 nd generation to the 2 nd and higher generation population in 1880. We have three of the four numbers in this equation (1880 2 nd generation, 1880 2 nd and higher generations, and 1920 3 rd and higher generation populations), and it is straightforward to estimate the missing element—the 1920 3 rd generation. 1920 3 rd Gen = [1880 2 nd Gen/1880 2 nd & Higher Gen]* 1920 3 rd & Higher Gen

This equation assumes that the relative magnitude of 1920 3 rd generation is roughly comparable to the descendents of the 1880 2 nd generation. The demographic metabolism that leads to generational replacement over time is exceedingly complex, and our simple model does not directly measure these processes (for more discussion, see Blau and Duncan 1967 : 112). Our estimation rests on an assumption about proportionality—that the 1880 2 nd generation (relative to the 2 nd and higher generational total) is proportional to the 1920 3 rd generation (relative to the 3 rd and higher generational total). One virtue of this assumption is its transparency – it does not specify demographic mechanisms, but simply assumes that generational replacement over a 40 year period (from all mechanisms) is roughly proportional to the initial generational composition.

The next step is to measure the industrial composition of the 1920 labor force within each immigrant generation: 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , and 4 th and higher. The industrial composition of the 1 st and 2 nd generations is directly measured, but estimating the industrial classification of 1920 3 rd generation (and 4 th & higher) can be done with an adaptation of the standard “Shift-Share” model. The Shift-Share model is often used to measure the expected changes in a subset of the population (state or locality) by assuming that change (share) is proportional to the change in the total population (national). The difference between the expected distribution and the actual distribution for the local area is a residual (shift) that is due to local factors that are independent of the national trend.

In this analysis, we first estimate an expected distribution by industry assuming that the growth rate of workers in each industry from 1880 to 1920 is equal to the national growth rate of the workforce. The next step is to measure the difference between the expected and actual workers in each industry. The logic of the estimation of these two components of industrial transformation—Continuity and Shifts—is diagramed in Figure 3 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms108728f3.jpg

Estimating the Sources of Change in the Industrial Structure of the Gainful Workforce From 1880 to1920

Continuity is measured as the “expected 1920 work force by industry”, which assumes 1920 workers are distributed by industry proportional to the industry structure of their ancestors in the 1880 workforce. In other words, the expected workers in each industry in 1920 are assumed to increase at the same rate as “natural growth” of the workforce from 1880 to 1920. The natural growth of the workforce (excluding 1 st generation immigrants) “r” is measured as the ratio of the 3 rd and higher generation population in 1920 to the 2 nd and higher generation labor force in 1880. Specifically, we assume that 24.2 million 3 rd and higher generation workers in 1920 are (approximately) the descendents of the 12.9 million 2 nd and higher generation workers in 1880. This succession process or “continuity” includes a host of demographic processes including aging and the differential “replacement” of 1880 workers by their adult children and grandchildren in 1920. The multiplication of this ratio (approximately 1.9) times the number of 1880 2 nd and higher generation workers in each industry in 1880 yields an “expected” number of 1920 3 rd and higher generation workers in each industry.

5.1 Estimation of Expected Number of Workers by Industry and Generation

This formula assumes that the overall growth rate “r,” is the same across all industries. This formula can be extended to divide the 1920 3 rd & higher generation expected populations into two components: the expected 1920 3 rd generation population and the expected 1920 4 th & higher generation population.

The overall natural growth rate is assumed to be equivalent for the 3 rd generation population and the 4 th and higher generation population. The expected distributions of the labor force by industry (and generation) from 1880 to 1920 assume continuity—1920 workers followed their parents (or grandparents) in the same industries. This assumes that skills, preferences, and informal mechanisms of recruitment are passed along across generations. As measured by the index of dissimilarity, the industrial structure of the 1880 first generation is more similar to that of the 1920 second generation than to the 1920 3 rd and higher generations. Of course, workers change employment from time to time, and children do not always follow in the same line of work as their parents. The forces of supply and demand, technological change, and other market forces create pressures to which workers must respond. The measured differences between the “actual” 1920 workers in each industry and the “expected” number are labeled (net) “Shifts.”

The next step is to allocate the Shifts between industries to the 3 rd generation and the 4 th and higher generations in 1920. The overall Shift for the 3 rd and higher generations in 1920 is distributed proportional to the relative size of the 1880 generations. Specifically,

The results of this simple estimation of Continuity and Shifts are show in Table 2 .

Estimation of the Composition of the 1920 Industrial Structure by Immigraton Generation Based on Assumptions of Generational Replacement from 1880 to 1920

(1). The generational compostion of each industrial sector is estimated in two steps:

a) GROWTH: the expected 1920 workers in each industry is assumed to be proportional to the national growth rate appied to the number of 1880 workers in the industry:

-- the 1920 4th and higher generation is assumed to be the descendants of the 1880 3rd and higher generations in that industry

-- the 1920 3rd generation is assumed to be the descendants of the 1880 2nd generation in that industry

b) SHIFT: the difference between the actual 1920 3rd and higher number in each industry and the expected based on assumed GROWTH

-- the estimated SHIFT for the 1920 3rd and higher generations is allocated proportional to the relative size of the 3rd and higher and 2nd generations in 1880.

(2). Columns 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the actual number (in thousands) of gainful workers in each industry, by immigrant generation (3rd & higher, 2nd, and 1st) in 1920.

(3). Columns 5 and 6 are the expected number of gainful workers in each industry in 1920 assuming proportional change from the the 1880 2nd & higher gen in to the 1920 3rd and higher gen

a) Col 5: Expected 1920 gainful workers in each industry from 1880 3rd and higher gen workers = r * 1880 3rd and higher gen workers in the industry

b) Col 6: Expected 1920 gainful workers in each industry from 1880 2nd gen workers = r * 1880 2nd gen workers in the industry

where r = the ratio of total 3rd and higher gen wokers in 1920 to the 1880 total 2nd gen and higher workers

(4). Columns 7 and 8 are the Shift of Workers (Actual - Expected) from 1880 to 1920 in each industry, assuming that the 1920 3rd and higher gen workers “inherit” the industry composition of the 2nd & higher gen workers in 1880. The expected 1920 workers are distributed proportionally to the 1880 generations of 3rd and higher and 2nd.

a) Col 7: The proportional share of the 1920 3rd gen & higher actual workers in each industry minus the expected 1920 “descendants” of the 1880 2nd and higher generation workers

b) Col 8: The proportional share of the 1920 3rd gen and higher actual workers in each industry minus the expected 1920 “descendants” of the 1880 2nd and higher generation workers

Column 1 through 4 in Table 2 show the 1920 workforce by industrial sector for all workers and for each immigrant generation (3 rd and higher, 2 nd , and 1 st ). The next two columns show the estimated workforce for the 4 th and higher and the 3 rd generations by industry in 1920, assuming intergenerational continuity. The next columns show net shifts, or the differences between the actual and expected workforce by industry, for the same immigrant generations. Let’s consider the manufacturing sector as an example to illustrate these calculations.

5.2 The Contribution of the 3 rd Generation

There were a little more than 10 million workers in manufacturing in 1920—about one quarter of the total workforce. This figure is in the first column of Table 2 in the row labeled MANUFACTURING. The next three columns show the absolute number of workers in each industry by generation in 1920. First and second generation immigrants comprised 2.9 and 2.5 million workers in manufacturing –or about 53% of the 10 million workers in the sector in 1920 (as noted in Table 1 ). This figure, as large as it is, is an underestimate of the contribution of immigration to the manufacturing sector in 1920. Recall that 58% of 1880 immigrant workers (which included both 1 st and 2 nd generation) were employed in manufacturing ( Table 1 ). Some of the 1880 immigrants and their descendents are included in the 1 st and 2 nd generation in 1920, but many others have been absorbed into the NBNP (3 rd and higher generation).

Following the logic of the formulae presented above, Columns 5 and 6 show the expected numbers of 1920 workers in each industry for the 1920 4 th & higher generations and the 1920 3 rd generation, respectively. A shorthand designation of these calculations is that the expected 1920 4 th and higher workers are the descendents of the 1880 3 rd and higher generation workers and the expected 1920 3 rd generation are the descendents of the 1880 2 nd generation. However, descendents is only an approximate term, since there are multiple demographic mechanisms that might be responsible for the replacement of the 1880 workforce by workers in 1920, including some individuals who are in the workforce at both time points. The expected generational figures in each industry are generated by an assumption of intergenerational continuity whereby each generation follows their parents (or grandparents) in the same sector of the economy. The measurement of this process is generated by the assumption of proportionality—workers in 1920 by generation were distributed by industrial sector in similar proportions to the prior generation in 1880.

The next two columns, 7 and 8, in Table 2 show the net Shifts (for the 4 th and higher and the 3 rd generations) between the actual and expected numbers in 1920 workforce by industry. Although we have only the actual 1920 workforce for the 3 rd and higher generation, we can estimate shifts for the 4 th and higher and the 3 rd generation in 1920, by assuming proportionality with the 1880 generational composition (the 3 rd and higher generation and the 2 nd generation).

These estimates are combined in columns 9, 10, and 11, which show the percentage of 1920 workers in each industry that can be attributed to 1 st and 2 nd generation workers, 3 rd generation continuity, and 3 rd generation shift. These three components are totaled in column 12 to show our estimates of the share of 1920 workers that might be thought to be the result of recent immigration. The results of this exercise are summarized in Figure 4 , which shows the composition of the 9 major industrial sectors in 1920 by immigrant generation.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms108728f4.jpg

Components of the 1920 Industrial Workforce

In the case of manufacturing, 53% of 1920 workers are immigrants (first and second generation), another 10% might be attributed to 3 rd generation continuity (based on the distribution of 2 nd generation workers in 1880), and the other 6% are estimated to be 3 rd generation shifts or the share of the descendents of 1880 2 nd generation workers who left their parental (grandparental) industry to become a worker in manufacturing. These estimates suggest that over two-thirds of manufacturing workers in 1920 are immigrants or the descendents of recent immigrants.

Most farmers in 1920 were the descendents of old stock Americans. Of the 10 million agricultural workers in 1920, only a quarter was first or second generation immigrants. There was a substantial exodus out of farming—the shift-share model estimates that 4 million 4 th (or higher) generation NBNP descendants of farmers were working in some other sector in 1920.

The mining sector, as shown in Table 1 , grew rapidly from 1880 to 1920 with relative decline in the immigrant share from 64 to 47%. The estimates (and assumptions) in Table 2 , show that all of the native born (NBNP) increase in mining is composed of the grandchildren of immigrants. This is also true of many other sectors in which it appears that the immigrant share declined from 1880 to 1920, such as railroad workers. Note, however, that the workforce in the new petroleum and natural gas industry was disproportionately composed of 4 th and higher generation Americans.

As noted earlier, almost 7 in 10 workers in manufacturing in 1920 were 1 st , 2 nd or 3 rd generation immigrants. This was particularly true in the growth sectors of iron and steel, machinery (but only one half of workers in the new motor vehicle industry), meat packing, and textiles and apparel. More than one half of railroad workers in 1920 had some foreign roots as did two thirds of workers in retail sales.

Although the addition of the 3 rd generation increases the participation of recent immigrants to the service sector, the role of immigrants in many of the relatively good jobs in teaching, health, the post office, and other government services is much lower than in manufacturing and other sectors with less desirable jobs. By virtue of their education and social connections, the descendents of long resident Americans had a leg up on entry into many of the better jobs in 1920. To the extent that there are differential intergenerational transition rates because of proximity, ethnic recruitment, and discrimination, these figures underestimate the advantages of long resident Americans relative to newcomers.

6. The Counterfactual

Would native born workers have been more willing to enter the industrial sector had immigrant labor not been available? Although it is impossible to answer this question definitively, we can review the potential labor reserves and speculate about their likely responses based the extensive research literature on domestic migration patterns.

The potential source of reserve labor in the United States in the late 19 th century and early 20 th century were the sons and daughters of small scale farmers in the Northeast, Midwest, and South. Many of these farms were relatively small and could barely support a family. With a growing population, many of the second and third sons of independent farmers had to descend to the ranks of tenancy or farm laborer, secure funds to purchase a farm (or marry a woman who was an heir to a farm), or seek their fortune elsewhere ( Wright 1988 ).

Some segments of the rural population were worse off than others. Over the last half of the 19 th century, a large fraction of Southern white famers had lost their land, and became tenant sharecroppers growing cotton on marginal lands ( Raper and Reid 1941 , Newby 1989 ). Even more precarious was the situation of African American tenant farmers, whose plight was comparable to those of persecuted peasantry ( Raper 1936 ). In addition to the economic privations shared by white and black sharecroppers, African Americans encountered omnipresent racism and rising violence in the Jim Crow South.

Poverty, even abject poverty, is not always an impetus to long distance migration. The thresholds that break the bonds of place vary across time and place. Depravation creates push factors but knowledge of opportunities in other locations, cultural preferences, and the support of family and friends in destination areas are also important ( Massey et al. 1993 ).

When mass migration from Europe was interrupted during World War I and then halted in the 1920s, Southern blacks migrated in large numbers to become industrial laborers in Northern cities. The African American Great Migration from the 1920s through the 1950s was an epochal movement ( Fligstein 1981 ; Tolnay 2003 ). The spread of the boll weevil and farm mechanization laid waste to even marginal employment in much of the rural South. There was a parallel trek of white workers from the South to northern cities ( Berry 2000 ; Gregory 2005 ; Kirby 1987 : Ch. 9). The destinations and timing of these domestic migrations suggest that Southern born blacks and whites were a partial substitute for European immigrant labor in industrializing cities of the North. Collins (1997) concludes that mass migration from Europe delayed the migration of black workers from the South.

The situation of white farmers outside the South, and their children, is more difficult to assess. A common presumption is that farming was a preferred way of life and migration, especially to the city, was the last resort even for the landless children of farmers. This assumption seems to be consistent with evidence on migration patterns. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the majority of the farm origin population remained on farms or in rural small town areas as adults, though not necessarily in their exact place of origin ( Taeuber 1967 : 25). Only a small percentage moved to large metropolitan cities.

This preference for an agricultural way of life was grounded in the historical settlement of the United States. Prior to the late 19 th century, cities were not engines of economic growth, but were primarily centers of commerce and administration and transportation hubs. For the first half of the 19 th century, over 90% of the American population lived in rural areas. Immigrants arrived in port cities, but most probably moved on as soon as they could. During the 18 th and the first half of the 19 th century, the shortage of land in eastern states impelled most immigrants as well as many of the children of older settlers to seek their fortunes on the American frontier, first in Appalachia, then in the Ohio Valley, and eventually in the Great Plains ( Ferrie 2006 : 1: 489). As the Eastern seaboard was filled in—at least in terms of agriculture—the western frontier was the source of land for agricultural settlement by immigrants and native born Americans without an inheritance ( Atack, Bateman, and Parker 2000 ).

The situation changed in the late 19 th century as most of the potential arable land on the American frontier was settled and the economic development of urban industries expanded employment opportunities in cities. With the development of the modern industrial economy, cities offered expanded employment in factories, commerce, and in offices. For persons with the right set of education, skills, and ambitions, the urban economy offered opportunities for social mobility that was impossible in any other location. There is evidence that the well educated sons of farmers were able to find well paid jobs as teachers, clerks, merchants, and in the skilled trades ( Wright 1988 : 201).

But for most white Americans with limited skills and ambitions, it was not obvious that menial factory or office work in a city was a step up from living on a farm or in a small town. Most factory jobs were probably not highly desirable. As the author of the 1920 census report on immigrants commented, “It would seem that, generally speaking, the foreign born population is engaged in more laborious, disagreeable, and probably, less skilled and less remunerative work than are the native born white” ( Carpenter 1927 : 271). One study reported that the accident rate for non English-speaking workers in one steel mill was twice the average for all workers and that one quarter of all recent immigrant steel workers were injured or killed ( Brody 1960 : 100–101). Most historical and comparative studies conclude that the process of industrialization was a profoundly alienating experience for most workers ( Kerr et al. 1964 : Chapter 6, Rodgers 1981 ). Factories that tried to impose industrial discipline were plagued by high rates of absenteeism and turnover.

The children of farmers who left farming were disproportionately represented in the lower rungs of the occupational hierarchy ( Freedman and Freedman 1956 , Blau and Duncan 1967 : 28). In addition to the loss of autonomy in factory employment, migrants from farm families had to give up the familiarity of family and friends and the economic security of food production. If forced to migrate, many native born white Americans from rural or small towns may have preferred to seek their fortune in the West than to join the ranks of the urban proletariat in industrializing cities. In the late 19 th and early 20 th century long distance (interstate) migration was much more likely to lead to greater occupational mobility than short distance moves ( Ferrie 2005 : 213).

Almost 90% of native-born white inter-state migrants went to rural areas during the 19 th century, and the proportion migrating to cities remained modest in the early decades of the 20 th century ( Hall and Ruggles 2004 ). Similar patterns are also evident in Table 3 , which shows net lifetime migration of African Americans and of whites by nativity for each decade from 1870 to 1950. The rapidly expanding industrial economy of the North and Midwest drew disproportionately on immigrant labor and then on African American workers from the South. From 1870 to 1920, the population growth of the Northeast and Midwest included almost 14 million immigrants, but there was negative net migration of 2.5 million native born whites out of the region. Following the closing of the immigration door, more than 2.5 million African American net migrants (from the South) were added to the population of the Northeast and Midwest from 1920 to 1950, while there was a continuing exodus of native born whites from the region (3.3 million from 1920 to 1950).

Net Migration (in thousands) of Native Whites, Foreign Born, and African Americans, 1870–80 to 1940–50.

Source: Eldridge and Thomas. 1964 . Tables 1 .21 and 1.27

Examining these data, Hatton and Williamson (1998 : 164–173) conclude that the competition with immigrants for jobs lowered the wages of the native born (or slowed their rate of increase) and that native born workers were crowded-out from urban labor markets in the Northeast and Midwest. In a detailed empirical study of the relationship between immigrant concentrations, manufacturing wages, and the inter-state (and inter-county) migration of the native born, Carter and Sutch (2006) find no support for Hatton and Williamson’s claims that the presence of immigrants lowered the wages and “crowded out” native born workers in industrial labor markets. 11 Wages, adjusted for cost of living, rose for manufacturing workers and unskilled workers during the age of immigration ( Rees 1961 ; Margo 2006 ). Moreover, Carter and Sutch (2006) show that there is a positive correlation between the destinations of immigrants and native born workers from 1900 to 1910. Rural laborers, both native-born and from abroad, were responding to declining prospects in their places of origin and to the new opportunities in the same destinations.

Many native born workers did go to the industrial cities, but many more sought their fortune in the West. The majority of immigrants, and the African Americans that followed them, settled in the industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest. The willingness of immigrants and African Americans to work in the lowest rungs of urban employment may have been largely due to the lack of better alternatives. Most immigrants had been pushed out of their places of origin and had to brave considerable costs and hardship to emigrate to the United States. The fact that one-third of European immigrants from 1908 to 1923 returned to Europe is testimony of the difficulties of adjusting to life and of finding employment in industrializing America ( Wyman 1993 : 10).

Although industrial wages continued to rise during the age of industrialization and immigration, it seems that the prevailing wages, working conditions, and urban life were not sufficiently attractive to many native born workers who had social attachments and security, if not prosperity, in their places of origin. Immigrants and their children remained the mainstay of industrial labor until the 1920s. Perhaps higher wages and better working conditions were necessary to attract a sufficient supply of domestic labor to work in the steel mills, stockyards, and other sectors of the industrial economy in the middle decades of the 20 th century.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

As the American industrial revolution spread in the late 19 th century and the early decades of the 20 th century, the United States passed Great Britain to become the most productive industrial nation in the world ( Romer 1996 ). In one of the most widely cited studies of this transition, Wright (1990) identifies a number of factors, including the discovery and development of mineral resources (coal, iron, petroleum, copper, and others) and the export of high quality producer goods as key to the American industrial development and rapid economic growth. Other researchers have emphasized the significance of the early American investment in human capital and the spread of public schooling as the primary reason for the ascendance of the American economy during the age of industrialization. In an interesting aside, Wright (1990 : 662) notes that most of the workers in the heavy industries were not well educated native born Americans, but immigrants who were not particularly well educated by world standards. He goes on to say, “Key industries like iron and steel and motor vehicles paid high wages to unskilled workers (who were nonetheless much cheaper than the skilled craft workers used with older technologies) presumably because it was rough, disagreeable, demanding work, and because it was vital to have an ample excess labor supply available” ( Wright 1990 : 662).

In this study, we have estimated the representation of the immigrant population, including the children and grandchildren of immigrants, in the industrial transformation of the American workforce from 1880 to 1920. This exercise involves a number of assumptions, mostly about the relative proportionality of the 3 rd generation in 1920 to the 2 nd generation in 1880. There are also many other potential problems of measurement, including inferring industry from occupational reports and unclear boundaries of the gainful worker population. Although we make no claims to exactitude, there is little doubt that the American workforce was heavily dependent on immigrant labor in the early 20 th century, and the manufacturing workforce was almost completely dependent on immigrant workers. Most prior studies of the role of industrial labor during these years have acknowledged the centrality of immigrant labor, but they underestimated their numbers because second and third generation immigrants were counted as part of the native born workforce.

Adjusting the immigrant share to include second generation workers is straightforward because parental birthplace was routinely measured in American censuses. Adding the 3 rd generation required a more complicated estimation procedure that relied on fairly crude assumptions. Our estimates of the 3 rd generation add another 15 to 20 percentage points to the prior estimates that about 50% of workers in most manufacturing industries were of immigrant stock. The results presented here show that 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd generation immigrants comprised 70 to 80% in several core manufacturing industries.

These are conservative estimates (which would underestimate the true level of the 3 rd generation in manufacturing) because third generation immigrant workers are assumed to be no more likely to shift to the manufacturing sector than the workforce as a whole. We expect that the children and grandchildren of urban residents from the mid 19 th century would have been much more likely to have entered industrial employment than the descendents of farmers. In 1880, even before industrialization was in full swing, 1 st and 2 nd generation immigrants comprised over one-third of the American workforce. Almost two-thirds of all miners, 41% of construction workers, 57% of manufacturing workers, 41% of railway workers, and 49% of retail sales workers in 1880 were immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The disproportionate concentration of the immigrant community in cities and nonagricultural employment in 1880 meant that their progeny were proximate to the exploding growth of employment in factories, offices, and retail trade in the late 19 th and early 20 th century. The 3 rd generation immigrants, with their American education, were probably able to rise above the less desirable jobs on the factory floor and found employment as foremen and even in the front office.

If we assume that the urban children and grandchildren of immigrants were prone to find employment in the industrial economy, can we also assume that the children of farmers were motivated to avoid industrial employment? We do not have direct measures on preferences, but over 50% of the sons of farmers found their first job in agriculture circa 1920 and about 40% were still in agricultural jobs several decades later ( Blau and Duncan 1967 : Tables 3.3 and 3.8). Most of the decline in agricultural employment over the first half of the 20 th century was a result of inter-cohort shifts rather than intra-cohort changes ( Duncan 1966b ). These figures suggest that, in spite of the economic pressures on farmers, the primary reasons for departure were the lack of an inheritance rather than discouragement with farming as a way of life. Most of the farm origin migrants in the early 20 th century went to rural areas or small towns and relatively few moved to large metropolitan cities ( Taeuber 1967 : 25). As noted earlier, there was substantial net lifetime out-migration of native born whites during the age of industrialization from the Northeast and Midwest to the West.

This avoidance of large cities, and industrial employment, by old stock white Americans who were reared in rural areas and small towns was probably reinforced by popular culture. For most of American history, cities, where most immigrants settled, were derided and feared as places filled with dangerous people and radical ideas ( Hawley 1972 : 521). 12 Popular beliefs about the natural superiority of a rural way of life were intertwined with ethnic stereotypes of urban residents and the corruption of people who moved to cities. These stereotypes probably discouraged the children of farmers in the late 19 th century and early 20 th century from migrating to cities and taking the unskilled jobs in the industrial economy.

The continued demand for unskilled labor in industrial cities after the cutoff of immigration in the 1920s certainly played a major role in continuing, if not originating, the African American Great Migration from the 1920s to the 1960s ( Collins 1997 ; Tolnay 2003 ). There was also a parallel wave of Southern white labor to Northern industrial cities that began during World War I and grew during the 1920s, 1940s, and 1950s ( Berry 2000 ; Gregory 2005 ). If there had not been the massive wave of European immigration from 1880 to 1920, the demand for labor may have started earlier and drew even larger numbers from the dispossessed Southern peasantry. There is substantial literature on the poverty and hardships of sharecroppers and tenant farmers, both black and white in the rural south ( Raper 1936 , 1943 ; Raper and Reid. 1941 ).

However, the scale of the demand for industrial employment from 1880 to 1920 might have overwhelmed the potential labor reserves. For readers who may not accept the assumptions used to pad our estimate of the impact of immigration with 2.8 million 3 rd generation workers in 1920, there were still 5.3 million 1 st and 2 nd generation workers in manufacturing (directly measured in the 1920 census). Replacing these 5.3 million immigrant workers in manufacturing would have required shifting one-quarter of all 3 rd and higher generation workers in 1920 from other sectors to manufacturing. 13 To accomplish even some fraction of this would have required much greater incentives, both in terms of pay and working conditions, than those offered to immigrants. Without immigrant labor, it seems unlikely that the American industrial revolution would have been achieved at the same pace, scale, and profitability that it did. Our claim is not that immigrant labor caused the American industrial revolution; there were a number of factors that played an important role in this epochal process. Immigrant labor, however, may well have been a necessary condition for the pace and scale of the rise of the manufacturing sector from 1880 to 1920.


The authors are deeply indebted to Patty Glynn for her statistical advice and assistance and to Brian Gatton, Avery Guest, Matthew Sobek, Stewart Tolnay, and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed criticisms and comments of earlier visions of this paper. All remaining errors are the responsibility of authors.

Appendix 1. Industry classification used in this study


206 Metal mining

216 Coal mining

226 Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction

236 Nonmettalic mining and quarrying, except fuel



306–326 Wood and Mineral Products (incl. logging/sawmills)

Metals (Steel and Iron)

336 Blast furnaces, steel works, & rolling mills

337 Other primary iron and steel industries

338 Primary nonferrous industries

346 Fabricated steel products

347 Fabricated nonferrous metal products

348 Not specified metal industries

356 Agricultural machinery and tractors

357 Office and store machines

358 Misc machinery

367 Electrical machinery, equipment and supplies

376 Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment

378 Ship and boat building and repairing

379 Railroad and misc transportation equipment

406–429 Food & Tobacco


436 Knitting mills

437 Dyeing and finishing textiles, except knit goods

438 Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings

439 Yarn, thread, and fabric

446 Misc textile mill products

448 Apparel and accessories

449 Misc fabricated textile products

487 Leather: tanned, curried, and finished

488 Footwear, except rubber

489 Leather products, except footwear

457–459 Paper and Printing

466–478 Chemical/Petro/Rubber

387–399 & 499 Miscellaneous


506 Railroads and railway

516 Street railways and bus lines

526 Trucking service

527 Warehousing and storage

536 Taxicab service

546 Water transportation

578 Telephone

579 Telegraph

586 Electric light and power

587 Gas and steam supply systems


606–627 Wholesale

636–699 Retail


716 Banking and credit

726 Security and commodity brokerage and invest companies

736 Insurance

746 Real estate

806 Advertising

807 Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services

808 Misc business services

879 Legal services

898 Engineering and architectural services


816 Auto repair services and garages

817 Misc repair services

826 Private households

836 Hotels and lodging places

846 Laundering, cleaning, and dyeing

847 Dressmaking shops

848 Shoe repair shops

849 Misc personal services

857 Theaters and motion pictures

858 Bowling alleys, and billiard and pool parlors

859 Misc entertainment and recreation services


868 Medical and other health services, except hospitals

869 Hospitals

888 Educational services

896 Welfare and religious services

897 Nonprofit membership organizs.

899 Misc professional and related

906 Postal service

916 Federal public administration

926 State public administration

936 Local public administration

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2006 annual meetings of the Population Association of America and at colloquia at the Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia, the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington, and the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota.

1 Industrial production experienced an almost five-fold expansion of value added in manufacturing and mining from 1880 to 1915 ( Davis 2006 : 3-23-24 and 3-25). Manufacturing’s share of value added in commodity production rose more rapidly from 1879 to 1894 than in any other period of the 19 th century ( Fogel 1964 : 121).

2 The children of immigrants includes native born persons who have at least one foreign born parent.

3 “Considering the magnitude and duration of this movement, it is difficult to exaggerate its importance as a factor in the economic growth of the United States. Since immigration brought in a large labor force, the cost of whose rearing and training was borne elsewhere, it clearly represented an enormous capital investment that dwarfed any capital inflows of the more orthodox type—a conclusion that stands with any reasonable estimate we can make of the money value of labor.” ( Kuznets 1971a : 357).

4 The major exceptions were Charlestown, South Carolina and Washington, DC.

5 Occupational prestige scales rank farmers above unskilled workers, while occupational socioeconomic scales consider them about the same, see Duncan 1961 .

6 About 13% of workers in the 1880 census IPUMS file did not have a known industry (codes 997 and 998). However, almost all did have a reported occupation (most were laborers), and this allowed us to impute industries based on the distribution of industries for those with a known occupation. We are grateful to Matthew Sobek who suggested this method.

7 This fast pace of growth has not slackened. The U.S. labor force also doubled from about 70 to 140 million workers from 1960 to 2000 ( Carter et al. 2006 : 2: 83–86).

8 The second generation is defined by census practice to include those with two foreign born parents and those with one foreign born parent.

9 This is the sum of coal mining, metals (iron and steel) manufacturing, and machinery manufacturing.

10 The absolute figures are not reported in Table 1 , but can be obtained by multiplying the proportion in the industry by the total workforce.

11 A less technical version of Carter and Sutch’s working paper is available from the Social Science Research Council website ( Carter and Sutch 2007 ).

12 Henry Ford, who as much as anyone created the American automobile age, “looked upon big cities as cesspools of iniquity, soulless, and artificial” ( Higham 1988 : 283).

13 There were 24.3 million NBNP workers in 1920 and 4.7 were already employed in manufacturing. The 5.3 million immigrant (1 st and 2 nd generation) workers in manufacturing are 27.2 % of the 19.5 million non-manufacturing NBNP workers.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Charles Hirschman, Department of Sociology and Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3340.

Elizabeth Mogford, Department of Sociology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9081.

  • Abramovitz Moses, David Paul A. American Macroeconomic Growth in the Era of Knowledge-Based Progress: The Long Run Perspective. In: Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 1–92. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Atack Jeremy, Bateman Fred, Parker William N. The Farm, the Farmer, and the Market. In: Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 245–284. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bancroft Gertrude. The American Labor Force: Its Growth and Changing Composition. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1958. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berry Chad. Southern Migrants, Northern Exiles. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Blau Peter, Duncan Otis Dudley. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brody David. Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era. New York: Harper; 1960. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cahan Abraham. The Rise of David Levinsky. New York: Harper and Brothers; 1917. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cain Louis P. Transportation. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 4–761.pp. 4–778. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carpenter Niles. Immigrants and Their Children. Census Monograph. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office; 1927. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carter Susan. Labor Force. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 2–13.pp. 2–35. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carter Susan, Sutch Richard. Historical Background to Current Immigration Issues. In: Smith James P, Edmonston Barry., editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, D.C..: National Academy Press; 1999. pp. 289–366. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carter Susan, Sutch Richard. “Resident Impacts of Immigration: Perspectives from America’s Age of Mass Migration.” Unpublished paper (August 3, 2006) Department of Economics. University of California-Riverside. 2006. Downloaded on November 10, 2008 from: .
  • Carter Susan, Sutch Richard. Labor Market Flooding? Migrant Destination and Wage Change during America’s Age of Mass Migration. 2007. Available from the Social Science Research Council “Border Battles: U.S. Immigration Debates” website at:
  • Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chandler Alfred. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Collins William J. When the Tide Turned: Immigration and the Delay of the Great Migration. Journal of Economic History. 1997; 57 :607–632. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Davis Joseph P. Index of Industrial Production. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 3–24.pp. 2–25. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Denison Edward F. Accounting for United States Economic Growth, 1929–1969. Washington, D. C.: 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Duncan Otis Dudley. A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations. In: Reiss Albert J., editor. Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press; 1961. pp. 109–138. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Duncan Otis Dudley. Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Social Mobility. In: Smelser Neil J, Lipset Seymour Martin., editors. Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development. Chicago: Aldine; 1966a. pp. 51–97. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Duncan Otis Dudley. Occupational Trends and Patterns in Net Mobility in the United States. Demography. 1966b; 3 :1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Easterlin Richard. Population, Labor Force, and Long Swings in Economic Growth: The American Experience. New York: Columbia University Press; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Eldridge Hope T, Thomas Dorothy Swaine. Population Redistribution and Economic Growth, United States, 1870 – 1950. Vol. III. Demographic Analyses and Interrelations. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Engerman Stanley L, Sokoloff Kenneth. Technology and Industrialization, 1790–1914. In: Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 367–401. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ferrie Joseph P. History Lessons: The End of American Exceptionalism? Mobility in the United States since 1850. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005; 19 :199–215. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ferrie Joseph P. Internal Migration. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. Vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 489–494. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fligstein Neil. Going North: Migration of Blacks and Whites from the South, 1900–1950. New York: Academic Press; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fogel Robert William. Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fogel Robert William, Engerman Stanley L., editors. The Reinterpretation of American Economic History. New York: Harper and Row; 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Freedman Ronald, Freedman Deborah. Farm Reared Elements in the NonFarm Population. Rural Sociology. 1956; 21 :50–61. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Friedberg Rachel, Hunt Jennifer. The Impact of Immigrants on Host Country Wages, Employment and Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1995; 9 :23–44. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gallman Robert. ‘Human Capital in the First Eighty Republic: How Much Did America Owe the Rest of the World? The American Economic Review: Papers and Proceeedings. 1977; 67 :27–31. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gibson Campbell, Jung Kay. Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850–2000. Working Paper no. 81. Washington, D.C.: Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census; 2006. Accessed at . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goldin Claudia. The Political Economy of Immigration Restriction in the United States, 1890 to 1921. In: Goldin Claudia, Libecap Gary D., editors. The Regulated Economy: A Historical Approach to Political Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. pp. 223–257. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goldin Claudia, Katz Lawrence F. The Origins of Technology-Skill Complementarity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1998; 113 :693–732. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gregory James. The Southern Diaspora: How the Migration of Black and White Southerners Transformed America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Guest Avery M. Frontier and Urban-Industrial Explanations of US Occupational Mobility in the late 1800s. Social Science Research. 2005; 34 :140–164. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Haines Michael R. The Population of the United States, 1790–1920. In: Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 143–205. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hall Patricia Kelly, Ruggles Steven. ‘Restless in the Midst of Their Prosperity’: New Evidence on the Internal Migration of Americans, 1850–2000. The Journal of American History. 2004; 91 :829–846. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hatton Timothy J, Williamson Jeffrey G. The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Impact. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hawley Amos. Population Density and the City. Demography. 1972; 9 :521–529. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Higham John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860 – 1925. 2. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 1988. original publication 1955. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hounshell David A. From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kahan Arcadius. Economic Opportunities and Some Pilgrims’ Progress: Jewish Immigrants from Eastern Europe in the U.S., 1890–1914. The Journal of Economic History. 1978; 38 :235–251. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Katz Michael, Stern Mark J. One Nation Divisible: What America Was and What it is Becoming. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kerr Clark, Dunlop John T, Harbison Frederick, Myers Charles A. Industrialism and Industrial Man. New York: Oxford University Press; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kirby Jack Temple. Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920–1960. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuznets Simon. Notes on the Pattern of U.S. Economic Growth. In: Fogel Robert William, Engerman Stanley L., editors. The Reinterpretation of American Economic History. New York: Harper and Row; 1971a. pp. 17–24. original publication 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuznets Simon. The Contribution of Immigration to the Growth of the Labor Force. In: Robert William Fogel, Stanley L Engerman., editors. The Reinterpretation of American Economic History. New York: Harper and Row; 1971b. pp. 396–401. original publication 1952. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lieberson Stanley. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Margo Robert A. Index of Money Wages for Unskilled Labor. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 2–256.pp. 2–257. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Massey Douglas, Arnago Joaquin, Hugo Graeme, Kouaouci Ali, Pellegrino Adela, Taylor J Edward. Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal. Population and Development Review. 1993; 19 :431–466. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mayer David. Midwestern Industrialization and the American Manufacturing Belt in the Nineteenth Century. Journal of Economic History. 1989; 49 :921–937. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Muller Thomas. Immigrants and the American City. New York: New York University Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Neal Larry, Uselding Paul. Immigration, A Neglected Source of American Economic Growth: 1790–1912. Oxford Economic Papers. 1972; 24 :68–88. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Newby IA. Plain Folk in the New South: Social Change and Cultural Persistence, 1880–1915. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Olmstead Alan L, Rhode Paul W. The Transformation of Northern Agriculture. In: Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 693–742. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Perry Joseph McGarity. The Impact of Immigration on Three American Industries, 1865–1914. New York: Arno Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Raff Daniel MG. Distribution. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 707–712. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ransom Roger L, Sutch Richard. Tontine Insurance and the Armstrong Commission: A Case of Stifled Innovation in the American Life Insurance Industry. Journal of Economic History. 1987; 47 :379–390. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Raper Arthur. Preface to Peasantry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1936. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Raper Arthur. Tenants of the Almighty. New York: Macmillan; 1943. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Raper Arthur, Reid Ira. Sharecroppers All. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1941. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rees Albert. Real Wages in Manufacturing. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rodgers Donald T. Tradition, Modernity, and the American Industrial Worker: Reflections and Critique. In: Rabb Theodore K, Rotberg Robert I., editors. Industrialization and Urbanization: Studies in Interdisciplinary History. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1981. pp. 217–243. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Romer Paul M. Why, Indeed, in America? Theory, History and the Origins of Modern Economic Growth. American Economic Review. 1996; 86 :202–206. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rosenberg Nathan. Technology and American Economic Growth. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe; 1972. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ruggles Steven, Sobek Matthew, Alexander Trent, Fitch Catherine A, Goeken Ronald, Hall Patricia Kelly, King Miriam, Ronnander Chad. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database] Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor]; 2004. . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schachter Joseph. Net Immigration of Gainful Workers into the United States, 1870–1930. Demography. 1972; 9 :87–105. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Singelmann Joachim. From Agriculture to Services: The Transformation of Industrial Employment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Smith James P, Edmonston Barry., editors. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Impacts of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sobek Matthew. New Statistics on the U.S. Labor Force, 1850–1990. Historical Methods. 2001; 34 :71–87. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sobek Matthew. Occupations. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 35–39. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sutch Richard. Industrial Classification. In: Carter Susan B, Sigmund Scott, Gartner Scott Sigmund, Haines Michael R, Olmstead Alan L, Sutch Richard, Wright Gavin., editors. Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition. Vol. 4. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 3–5. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Taeuber Irene B, Taeuber Conrad. People of the United States in the Twentieth Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Taeuber Karl. The Residential Redistribution of Farm Born Cohorts. Rural Sociology. 1967; 32 :20–36. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Thomas Brinley. Migration and Economic Growth: A Study of Great Britain and the Atlantic Economy. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tolnay Stewart. The African American ‘Great Migration’ and Beyond. Annual Review of Sociology. 2003; 29 :209–232. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ward David. Cities and Immigrants: A Geography of Change in Nineteenth Century America. New York: Oxford University Press; 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wright Gavin. American Agriculture and the Labor Market; What Happened to Proletarianization? Agricultural History. 1988; 62 :182–209. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wright Gavin. The Origins of American Industrial Success: 1879–1940. American Economic Review. 1990; 80 :651–678. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wyman Mark. Roundtrip to America, The Immigrants Return to Europe: 1880–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zolberg Aristide R. A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zunz Olivier. The Changing Face of Inequality: Urbanization, Industrial Development, and Immigrants in Detroit, 1880–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]

U.S. flag

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Website

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Create Account

Early American Immigration Policies

Picture of Castle Garden Immigration Inspection Center.

Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s. After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared regulation of immigration a federal responsibility. Thus, as the number of immigrants rose in the 1880s and economic conditions in some areas worsened, Congress began to pass immigration legislation.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Alien Contract Labor laws of 1885 and 1887 prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States. The general Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax of fifty cents on each immigrant and blocked (or excluded) the entry of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge.

These national immigration laws created the need for new federal enforcement authorities. In the 1880s, state boards or commissions enforced immigration law with direction from U.S. Treasury Department officials. At the Federal level, U.S. Customs Collectors at each port of entry collected the head tax from immigrants while "Chinese Inspectors" enforced the Chinese Exclusion Act.

  Origins of Federal Immigration Service - Next >>

19th Century

Exploring 19th Century Immigration Through Primary Sources

Welcome to my blog, 19th Century ! In this article, we will delve into the fascinating world of 19th century immigration through the lens of primary sources. Get ready to explore firsthand accounts, letters, and documents that shed light on the experiences and challenges faced by immigrants during this transformative period. Join me as we embark on a journey through time and uncover the untold stories of those who sought new beginnings in the 19th century .

Table of Contents

Exploring 19th Century Immigration: Unveiling Primary Sources

In order to explore 19th century immigration, it is crucial to delve into primary sources that provide valuable insights into this historical context. Primary sources are firsthand accounts or original documents from the time period being studied. They offer an authentic glimpse into the experiences, challenges, and aspirations of immigrants during the 19th century .

By analyzing primary sources such as diaries, letters, newspapers, and photographs, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the motivations and circumstances that pushed people to leave their homes and embark on often treacherous journeys to new lands. These sources allow us to glimpse into their hopes for a better future, the hardships they faced during their travels, and the impact of their arrival on the countries they migrated to.

One such primary source is The New York Times article titled “Immigration in the Nineteenth Century” , published in 1869. This article provides a contemporary perspective on immigration during that time period. It sheds light on the prevailing attitudes towards immigrants and the debates surrounding their presence in the United States. By examining this source, researchers can gain insight into the biases and opinions that shaped public discourse on immigration in the 19th century.

Another important primary source is the “Ellis Island Passenger Records” . Ellis Island was the main entry point for immigrants coming to the United States between 1892 and 1954. The passenger records kept there provide a wealth of information about individual immigrants, including their country of origin, age, occupation, and final destination. These records allow researchers to trace the patterns of immigration, identify the most common countries of origin, and explore the demographics of immigrant populations during the 19th century.

Additionally, personal narratives and memoirs written by immigrants offer invaluable perspectives on their experiences. One notable example is “The Diary of Mary Antin” , a memoir published in 1912 that chronicles the author’s journey from Russia to the United States in the late 19th century . Antin’s diary provides rich details about her motivations for leaving her homeland, the challenges she faced during the voyage, and her initial impressions of America. This source allows researchers to understand the emotional and psychological impact of immigration on individuals and their families.

By utilizing these primary sources, historians and researchers can gain a more nuanced understanding of 19th century immigration. They provide firsthand accounts that reveal the complexities and realities of this pivotal historical period. Exploring primary sources enables us to uncover the diverse stories and experiences of immigrants, giving voice to those who played a crucial role in shaping the societies we live in today.

Immigration in the 1900’s – 20th Century Travelers

Why 80% of new zealand is empty, what are the main sources of immigration legislation.

The main sources of immigration legislation in the 19th century can be traced back to several key laws and acts passed by the United States government. These laws aimed to regulate and control the flow of immigrants into the country during a period of significant demographic changes.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first federal law that set guidelines for granting citizenship to immigrants. It restricted naturalization to “free white persons” of good moral character who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked a turning point in U.S. immigration policy, specifically targeting Chinese immigrants. It suspended Chinese immigration for ten years and prohibited Chinese immigrants already in the country from becoming citizens.

The Immigration Act of 1891 established the Bureau of Immigration, which was tasked with overseeing and regulating immigration to the United States. This act introduced the requirement of an inspection process at the port of entry and established the legal basis for excluding certain categories of individuals from entering the country.

The Immigration Act of 1903 expanded the authority of the government to exclude or deport immigrants based on various grounds, including mental illness, criminal history, or being deemed a public charge.

It is important to note that immigration legislation in the 19th century primarily focused on controlling and regulating the entry of immigrants rather than promoting their integration or inclusion. These laws reflect the social, economic, and political context of the time, as well as the changing attitudes towards immigration in the United States.

What was immigration like during the 19th century?

During the 19th century, immigration saw a significant increase around the world. This period is often referred to as the “Age of Mass Migration.” The push and pull factors that led people to migrate varied, but they commonly included economic opportunities, political and religious freedoms, and escape from poverty, persecution, or war.

In the United States, for example, millions of immigrants arrived seeking better lives. They came from various parts of Europe, including Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia, as well as from China. These immigrants had a profound impact on the country’s demographics, labor market, and culture.

Immigration procedures were much different than today. There were no quotas or restrictions on who could enter the country. However, the journey itself was arduous and perilous. Immigrants often traveled in cramped conditions aboard overcrowded ships, enduring weeks or even months at sea. Many faced disease, starvation, and other hardships during the journey.

Upon arrival, immigrants had to go through a process of inspection at the port of entry. In the United States, this often took place at Ellis Island. Officials checked for any signs of illness or other health concerns. They also assessed basic qualifications, such as having enough money to sustain oneself and possessing some skills or family connections.

Once cleared, immigrants were free to settle in their new countries. However, they often faced challenges in adapting to their new surroundings. Language barriers, discrimination, and cultural differences made life difficult for many immigrants. Nonetheless, they persevered and contributed greatly to the economic and social development of their adopted nations.

The 19th-century immigration wave eventually led to changes in immigration policies. As the number of newcomers increased, concerns about social integration and job competition grew. Countries like the United States began implementing stricter immigration laws and regulations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Immigration during the 19th century was characterized by a large-scale movement of people seeking better opportunities and escaping adverse conditions. Though the journey was treacherous, immigrants played a vital role in shaping the societies they joined, leaving lasting impacts on culture, labor, and politics.

During the early 1800s, what was the primary source of immigrants to the United States?

During the early 1800s, the primary source of immigrants to the United States was Europe.

What impact did immigration have on the 19th century?

Immigration had a significant impact on the 19th century. It played a crucial role in shaping the economic, social, and cultural landscape of the time.

Economically, immigration provided a significant source of labor for growing industries during the Industrial Revolution. Immigrants from Europe, particularly Ireland and Germany, filled jobs in factories, mines, and construction sites. Their arrival helped meet the increasing demand for workers and drove economic growth. Additionally, many immigrants brought valuable skills and knowledge, contributing to technological advancements and innovation.

Socially, immigration led to the formation of diverse communities in cities and rural areas. Immigrants often settled together in ethnic enclaves, where they maintained their cultural traditions and languages. These communities provided support networks and allowed immigrants to preserve their identities while adapting to their new surroundings. However, this also led to some tension and discrimination from native-born Americans who viewed immigrants as threats to their culture and jobs.

Culturally, immigration enriched American society with a wide range of traditions, customs, and perspectives. Immigrants brought their cuisines, music, literature, and art, contributing to the development of a multicultural society. This cultural exchange influenced American identity and fostered a sense of diversity and tolerance.

Moreover, immigration had long-lasting political ramifications. It fueled debates and conflicts over issues such as citizenship, labor rights, and assimilation policies. The influx of immigrants also prompted the creation of immigration laws to regulate and control the flow of people entering the country.

Immigration in the 19th century had a profound impact on the economy, society, culture, and politics of the time. It fueled industrialization, contributed to the formation of diverse communities, enriched American culture, and sparked debates over immigration policies that continue to shape the nation’s identity today.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some primary sources that provide insights into the experiences of immigrants in the 19th century.

Primary sources are firsthand accounts or records of events created by people who experienced or witnessed those events. They provide valuable insights into the experiences of immigrants in the 19th century. Here are some primary sources that can shed light on the immigrant experience during this time:

1. Diaries and Letters: Personal diaries and letters written by immigrants themselves offer intimate details about their journey, challenges, and aspirations. Examples include the diary of Irish immigrant Anne O’Brien, who documented her voyage to America in 1848, or the letters of Chinese immigrant Wong Chin Foo, discussing his experiences in late 19th-century New York.

2. Newspapers and Magazines: Many newspapers and magazines of the 19th century published articles, editorials, and letters written by immigrants or about immigrant communities. These publications provide a broader perspective on immigrant experiences as well as discussions on immigration policies and societal attitudes. For example, the German-language newspaper “Die Freiheits-Presse” in America, or the Irish newspaper “The Nation” which covered topics related to Irish immigration.

3. Government Reports: Official government reports often contain statistical data and testimonials related to immigration. Reports such as the U.S. Congressional Reports on Immigration can provide information on immigrant numbers, nationality, occupations, and other essential details about their experiences and challenges.

4. Oral Histories: Conducted interviews or recorded oral histories with immigrants and their descendants can offer unique insights into their personal experiences and family histories. Organizations like the Library of Congress’ American Folklife Center or local historical societies may have collections of such interviews.

5. Photographs and Visual Materials: Photographs, drawings, and other visual materials can provide visual documentation of immigrant experiences. The work of Jacob Riis, a Danish-American social reformer and photographer, documented the living conditions of immigrants in New York City’s tenements in the late 19th century.

These primary sources allow us to directly access the voices, perspectives, and experiences of immigrants during the 19th century, helping to deepen our understanding of their struggles, triumphs, and contributions to American society.

How do primary sources such as letters, diaries, and newspaper articles contribute to our understanding of 19th century immigration?

Primary sources such as letters , diaries , and newspaper articles provide invaluable insights into 19th century immigration. These sources offer personal accounts, firsthand experiences, and contemporary perspectives that enrich our understanding of this historical period.

Letters exchanged between immigrants and their loved ones back home offer glimpses into the challenges, motivations, and aspirations of individuals embarking on new lives in a foreign land. They provide details about the journey itself, including the conditions aboard ships, the emotions felt during separation, and the initial impressions upon arrival. These correspondences allow us to explore the connections between immigrants and their home countries, as well as the cultural adjustments they had to make.

Diaries kept by immigrants during their voyage or settlement period help us understand their daily lives, struggles, and triumphs. These personal accounts shed light on the specific challenges faced by individuals, families, and communities during this time. They reveal the social and economic conditions immigrants encountered, the difficulties of finding work and housing, as well as their efforts to preserve their cultural heritage while assimilating into their new surroundings.

Newspaper articles from the 19th century were important sources of information and opinion on immigration. They reflect the societal attitudes towards immigrants, the political debates surrounding immigration policies, and the impact of immigration on local communities. These articles provide a broader context, allowing us to examine the public discourse and understand the prevailing opinions on immigration during this period.

Primary sources such as letters, diaries, and newspaper articles greatly contribute to our understanding of 19th century immigration by providing personal perspectives, documenting individual experiences, and capturing the societal dynamics of the time. They allow us to go beyond statistics and official records, offering a more nuanced and comprehensive view of this significant historical phenomenon.

Where can I access primary sources related to 19th century immigration, and what types of information do they contain?

Primary sources related to 19th century immigration can be accessed through various platforms and institutions. Here are some possible sources:

1. National Archives : The National Archives in the United States holds a wealth of primary sources related to immigration during the 19th century. These include passenger lists, naturalization records, immigrant correspondence, and more.

2. Library of Congress : The Library of Congress also offers a range of primary sources on 19th century immigration. They have digitized materials such as photographs, maps, personal narratives, and government documents.

3. Newspaper archives : Many newspapers from the 19th century have been digitized and made accessible online. These newspapers often contain articles, advertisements, and editorials related to immigration and the experiences of immigrants.

4. Immigrant aid societies : Various immigrant aid societies were established during the 19th century to assist newcomers. Some of these organizations have preserved records and documents that can provide insights into the specific challenges and experiences of immigrants.

5. Personal diaries and letters : Some individuals documented their experiences of immigration in personal diaries and letters. These primary sources offer firsthand accounts of the challenges faced by immigrants and their personal stories.

6. Government and legal documents : Government agencies and courts produced numerous documents related to immigration during the 19th century. This includes laws, regulations, court records, and administrative papers that shed light on the immigration process and its impact.

These primary sources contain a wide range of information about 19th century immigration. They provide details about the journey and arrival of immigrants, their experiences in their new country, reasons for immigrating, reactions from local communities, changes in immigration policies, and more. They can offer valuable insights into the social, economic, and cultural aspects of immigration during this period.

Examining primary sources from the 19th century provides invaluable insights into the experience of immigration during this pivotal era. Through the examination of documents such as letters, diaries, and newspaper articles, we are able to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges, triumphs, and aspirations that accompanied individuals and families as they embarked on their journeys to new lands. These primary sources serve as windows into the past , offering a firsthand account of the hopes, dreams, and struggles of immigrants who sought a better life in the 19th century.

Furthermore, the analysis of these primary sources allows us to unravel the complex narratives of immigration and explore the diverse voices that shaped this era. It is through these firsthand accounts that we can appreciate the vast range of experiences, from the economic motives that drove some to leave their homes, to the political and religious persecution that forced others to seek refuge elsewhere. These primary sources bring to light the human stories behind the statistics and offer a more nuanced perspective on the complexities of 19th century immigration .

Additionally, primary sources also highlight the changing dynamics of immigration in the 19th century. As the century progressed, we witness shifts in patterns of migration, with different waves of immigrants arriving from various regions of the world. These primary sources provide a glimpse into the changing demographics , allowing us to understand the cultural, social, and economic impact that different immigrant groups had on the countries they settled in.

The study of primary sources from the 19th century provides a rich tapestry of narratives that enhance our understanding of this transformative period in history. These sources not only inform us about the experiences of individual immigrants but also shed light on larger societal changes, such as the development of urban centers, labor movements, and political ideologies. By delving into these primary sources , we are able to bridge the gap between the past and the present and gain a deeper appreciation for the contributions and sacrifices made by those who shaped the 19th century through their immigration journeys.

To learn more about this topic, we recommend some related articles:

Journey Across the Seas: Exploring 19th Century Immigrant Ships

Journey Across the Seas: Exploring 19th Century Immigrant Ships

Navigating the Trials: Challenges Faced by Immigrants in the 19th Century

Navigating the Trials: Challenges Faced by Immigrants in the 19th Century

Exploring 19th Century Immigration Through Primary Sources

Exploring the Impact of 19th Century Immigration Laws: A Historical Perspective

The Impact of 19th Century Irish Immigrants: a Journey of Hope, Struggles, and Triumphs

The Impact of 19th Century Irish Immigrants: a Journey of Hope, Struggles, and Triumphs

The Causes and Effects of 19th Century Immigration: Unraveling the Threads of Historical Migration

The Causes and Effects of 19th Century Immigration: Unraveling the Threads of Historical Migration

Immigration to the U.S. in the Late 1800s

Map of immigration to the U.S. from the east and west

Geography, Social Studies

Loading ...

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .


Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

  • Skip to global NPS navigation
  • Skip to the main content
  • Skip to the footer section

immigration in the 1800s essay


Essay 4: immigration, exclusion, and resistance, 1800s-1940s.

Taken the day after Pearl Harbor in SF. Collections of LoC

Photo by Dorothea Lange, from the collections of the Library of Congress (

Part of a series of articles titled Finding a Path Forward: Asian American Pacific Islander National Historic Landmarks Theme Study .

Previous: Essay 3: Archaeological Research on Asian Americans

Next: Essay 5: Establishing Communities, 1848-1941

You Might Also Like

  • aapi theme study
  • immigration
  • asian american and pacific islander heritage
  • asian american and pacific islander history
  • political history
  • labor history
  • agricultural history

Last updated: April 9, 2019

immigration in the 1800s essay

Handout A: Background Essay – The History of Immigration Law in the United States

immigration in the 1800s essay

Background Essay—The History of Immigration Law in the United States

Directions: Read the background essay and answer the critical thinking questions at the end. In addition, formulate your own questions about the content discussed.

In the modern era, nation-states are defined as much by their borders as by their unique laws, forms of government, and distinct national cultures. Since the early years of the United States’ history, the federal government has sought, with varying degrees of success, to limit and define the nature and scale of immigration into the country. In the first seventy years of the nation’s history, immigration was left largely unchecked; Congress focused its attention on defining the terms by which immigrants could gain the full legal rights of citizenship. Beginning in the 1880s, however, Congress began to legislate on the national and ethnic makeup of immigrants. Lawmakers passed laws forbidding certain groups from entering the country, and restricted the number of people who could enter from particular nations. In the 1920s, Congress enacted quotas based upon immigrants’ national origin, limiting the number of immigrants who could enter from non-Western European countries. In the 1960s, immigration policy was radically transformed and the policies of the preceding generations were abolished. Through these reforms, which still determine the United States’ immigration policy today, greater numbers of Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans are permitted to enter the country than immigrants of European background, giving preferred status to these immigrant groups.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to “Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The first national law concerning immigration was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated that any free white person who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years could apply for full citizenship. Congress also required applicants to demonstrate “good character” and swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Blacks were ineligible for citizenship.

In 1795, naturalization standards were changed to require five years’ prior residence in the U.S., and again in 1798 to require 14 years’ residence. The 1798 revision was passed amidst the anti-French fervor of the Quasi-War and sought to limit the influence of foreign-born citizens in federal elections. During Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the 1798 standards were repealed to require five years’ residence once more. As immigration patterns changed over time, especially in the late 1840s and early 1850s as Irish and Germans replaced the British as the primary immigrant groups, federal immigration law remained largely unchanged. Despite anti-immigrant agitation in the 1850s and the rise of nativist political groups, no limits or quotas were imposed on immigration.

Questions still lingered about the nature of citizenship for black Americans. In December 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, abolishing slavery in all of the states. Were emancipated slaves citizens, or not? Through the end of the Civil War, slaves had not been considered citizens and possessed none of the rights of their white countrymen. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 established that freedmen were indeed citizens. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confirmed the position set forth in the Civil Rights Act. The amendment stated that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The amendment prohibited the states from curtailing the privileges of federal citizenship. The construction of the citizenship clause indicates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, and this is what federal law has maintained ever since. However, there is disagreement as to the meaning of the citizenship clause, and whether it was intended to clarify the status of emancipated slaves, or whether it was written to apply to all peoples regardless of context.

During the congressional ratification debates, members made clear the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator and Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens argued in 1866 that the Fourteenth Amendment was the final fulfillment of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, a law designed to ensure equal rights for all Americans no matter their race or prior status under the law. Senator Jacob Howard, one of the chief authors of the citizenship clause, reassured Congress by saying the amendment “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens” or had been born to foreign diplomats. Senator John Bingham echoed his colleague’s remarks and said the citizenship clause reasserts “that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”

The question remains whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause should be interpreted as a protection of the rights of citizenship of former slaves, or if it is a blanket protection for all persons born in the United States no matter their parents’ national allegiance or legal status. Current law favors the latter interpretation, and there is ongoing controversy whether children born of unnaturalized or illegal immigrants should be granted automatic citizenship.

After the Civil War, the American economy boomed as industry grew and the American West was settled and organized into new states. On the Pacific coast, the high demand for labor drew thousands of Chinese immigrants into the country to work in a variety of capacities. Most often, they worked building railroads or in mines. Others farmed or ran businesses in California’s growing cities. By the late 1870s, opposition to Chinese laborers had grown substantially, stemming from a combination of racism and the belief that Chinese laborers unfairly competed with white American laborers and stole economic opportunities from workers more deserving. Eventually, Congress passed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act barring virtually all new immigration from China. The act was extended in 1892 and on a permanent basis beginning in 1902. Other laws further restricted the rights and privileges of Chinese immigrants already in the United States. The Scott Act of 1888, for example, forbade Chinese immigrants who left the United States from returning. It was not until World War II, when China was a military ally of the United States, that the ban on Chinese immigration was lifted.

For most of the 1800s, the main sources of immigrants to the United States were British, Irish, German, Scandinavian, and Central European peoples. By the 1880s, immigration patterns shifted toward Eastern and Southern European groups, especially Italians, Poles, Russians, and other Slavic peoples. Most were pulled to the United States by the promise of better opportunities and improved quality of life. The dramatic change in the ethnic makeup of this “new wave” of immigrants caused alarm among nativists, racialists, and pro-Protestant interests. One legislative response to this was the Immigration Act of 1917 which created the Asiatic Barred Zone, a vast area of Asia from which no person could immigrate to the U.S. The prohibited areas included most of the Middle East, South Asian countries like Persia and British-ruled India, as well as central Asia and Southeastern Asia.

In another response to the growing number of immigrants arriving from Eastern and Southern European countries, Congress passed the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, which placed limits on the number of people entering the country based upon prescribed quotas. The law used the 1910 Federal Census to determine existing numbers of foreign-born citizens already living in the U.S. It then required that a number equivalent to only 3% of the already resident population from a certain country could be admitted. Therefore, for example, if 100,000 Bulgarians already lived in the U.S., only 3,000 Bulgarian immigrants could enter annually thereafter. This scheme became known as the National Origins Formula. The goal of federal policy sought to ensure that new waves of immigrants from outside western and central Europe could slowly integrate into American society and so could better embrace American notions of civic virtue, self-government, and productivity.

This law was followed a few years later by the Immigration Act of 1924 which decreased the quota from 3% to 2% and used the 1890 census instead of the 1910 census as the reference point for its quotas. Because Congress chose to utilize the 1890 census, which showed a higher proportion of residents from more desirable European countries like Germany and Great Britain, the law created artificially low quotas for the new immigrants. Furthermore, it placed low caps on arrivals from majority non-white nations, like those in Africa and the Middle East. In the first year of its enactment, the law permitted 51,000 German immigrants, for example, but only 100 from the Arabian Peninsula.

Latent anti-immigrant hostility erupted during both World Wars. Anti-immigrant antagonism has not always been racially motivated. In World War I, German-Americans (even those born in the United States) were subjected to discrimination and harassment for their national background. In some communities, German-Americans were lynched by mobs while others had their businesses boycotted or closed. Americans born in Germany were forced to register with the government as “enemy aliens,” and some states prohibited the use of the German language in school instruction. Most Lutheran churches ceased conducting services in the German language and adopted English instead. During World War II, Japanese-Americans were subjected to even worse treatment and were forced into internment camps for the duration of the war. In February 1942 President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 requiring Japanese-Americans to report for forced relocation to prisoner camps away from the Pacific coast. Fred Korematsu challenged the legality of Roosevelt’s directive, but in Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the internment of Japanese-Americans was constitutional.

The quotas and restrictions of the 1920s remained largely in place until the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, who undertook a sweeping reform project of many of the most important public policy sectors. As part of his reform agenda, Johnson signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended use of the National Origins Formula. Under the new law, 120,000 immigrants were to be admitted annually from Western Hemisphere nations in Latin and South America. 170,000 people per year would be admitted from Asia, Africa, and Europe combined. The reforms of 1965 initiated a substantial change in the ethnic and national origin of immigrants and this accounts for the rapid growth of the non-European population seen today. Instead of a movement of people almost solely from Europe, immigration today is dominated by non-European peoples from all parts of the world. Further, the 1965 reform provided an avenue for immigrants’ families to come to the United States after them, as family immigration is usually not counted in the overall quota. With minor revisions, the standards set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 remain in effect today and still determines from which countries the United States draws its new citizens.


  • Describe the Naturalization Act of 1790. According to this law, who could become citizens of the United States? What racial boundaries to citizenship did the law define? What were the conditions of gaining full citizenship?
  • What is naturalization and why were law makers in the years around 1800 concerned with defining how long citizens must be in the country to become naturalized?
  • Describe the debate over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. How do most Americans in the present day interpret the law? How did its framers explain the law at the time?
  • What were some of the reasons that the Chinese were forbidden to immigrate? When were these immigration restrictions lifted?
  • Describe the challenges faced by immigrants and the descendants of recent immigrants during World War I and World War II. What did the Supreme Court rule in Korematsu v. U.S. ?
  • What were the primary changes brought about in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? How was this law different from the laws enacted in 1921 and 1924?

Research Our Records

National Archives Logo

Immigrant Records at the National Archives

Please note:  Although some of these records have been digitized and made available online, there are many records that are only available in paper or microfilm format at NARA locations.

Among the billions of historical records housed at the National Archives throughout the country, researchers can find information relating to immigrants from the late 1700s through the early 2000s.  The National Archives preserves and makes available documents created by Federal agencies in the course of their daily business.

As you plan your research, consider this question: how does my research topic intersect with the US Federal Government?  

What are you researching?

ellis island

Immigration Records

naturalization ceremony

Naturalization Records


Visa Records 


Alien Files (A-Files)

enemy alien file

Enemy Alien Records


Passport Records

other immigrant topics

Other Immigrant Topics  

Japanese American

Ethnic Heritage

What are people asking on history hub about immigration and naturalization records.


  • How to fid the name in US immigration records William Nash born UK 1800
  • i am looking for a Certificate of Non Existence for my Great Grandfather
  • I am looking for naturalization records for my grandfather, Frederick Thomas Tucker. He came into the USA through the Port of Philadelphia after departing Liverpool England on 5/8/1901. He married Cora Bell Carlton on 7/6/1906 and was naturalized on...
  • Ship manifests
  • I am applying in court in Italy for Italian dual citizenship

Find answers to your research questions at History Hub

Get the best experience and stay connected to your community with our Spectrum News app. Learn More

Continue in Browser

Get hyperlocal forecasts, radar and weather alerts.

Please enter a valid zipcode.


Picturing immigration: Conserving the past in person

It’s painstaking work: the conservation of a painting from the collection of the Museum of the City of New York that is almost 170 years old.

The work is Samuel Bell Waugh’s “The Bay and Harbor of New York.” Conservator Garry McGowan and his son Adam are repairing an old tear on the canvas in order to stabilize it. 

What You Need To Know

”preservation in progress: picturing immigration” is an exhibition at the museum of the city of new york conservator gary mcgowan will be at the museum three days a week working on a nearly 170-year-old painting ”the bay and harbor of new york” depicts irish immigrants arriving in new york in the mid-1800s.

The McGowans are not working on the painting in a studio, but in a first-floor gallery at the museum. It’s part of an exhibition called “Preservation in Progress: Picturing Immigration.”

Three days a week, visitors can watch the process, which is a rare opportunity to see how museums around the world care for objects that are old and fragile.

“We thought it would be an interesting, and frankly, educational opportunity to bring the public in and show them a little bit of how this work happens on a day-to-day basis,” Lilly Tuttle, a curator, said. 

There are hands-on activities for folks to see what it takes to care for items in a museum’s collection. Plus, there is an overhead camera that allows for a closeup of the work being done to a 16-foot-long centerpiece of the exhibition.

It’s an image of Irish immigrants disembarking at the southern tip of Manhattan in the mid-1800s. 

Other depictions of immigrant arrivals in New York over the years continue the conversation, whether it be from Ellis Island or an area airport or train depot.

“This question of how immigrants are depicted, how the moment of arrival is represented through visual culture, is one of the important topics of this exhibition, because of course this is really resonating with a lot of New Yorkers now,” Tuttle said. 

To get a close-up look at conservation in action, McGowan will be on site Thursday, Friday and Saturday for as long as they are working on the painting. 

They expect to be wrapped up sometime in mid-July. The exhibition will be up through Oct. 13.

The growing tensions over immigration in Ireland

Today in Focus Series

  • Apple Podcasts
  • Google Podcasts

Hosted by Hannah Moore with Rory Carroll and Leon Diop; produced by Courtney Yusuf ; sound design by Rudi Zygadlo ; the executive producer is Nicole Jackson

Tue 14 May 2024 03.00 BST Last modified on Fri 17 May 2024 23.58 BST

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share via Email

Rory Carroll, the Guardian’s Ireland correspondent, looks at what is fuelling anti-immigrant anger in the Republic of Ireland

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Immigration has increasingly become a point of tension in Ireland. Recently, the Irish government said the threat of deportation to Rwanda had partly fuelled a surge in arrivals entering Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland, a route that it says now accounts for more than 80% of asylum seekers in the republic. The Irish Refugee Council and other advocacy groups have questioned the figure. On Monday a judge in Belfast ruled that large parts of the UK government’s illegal migration act should not apply in Northern Ireland because they breach human rights laws; the UK government has said it will appeal the ruling.

Today in Focus host Hannah Moore talks to Rory Carroll, the Guardian’s Ireland correspondent, about immigration policy in Ireland. He tells Hannah that a changing population, a housing crisis and social and economic inequalities have led to rising anti-immigrant sentiment in Ireland. In November, riots broke out after a stabbing in Dublin. Social media commentators outed the alleged assailant as a foreigner – in fact, he was a naturalised Irish citizen, reportedly from Algeria – and a violent protest ensued. Hundreds of people rampaged through central Dublin, targeting property and police.

Leon Diop , co-founder of Black & Irish, says the riots were a watershed moment and that he feels racism has become supercharged in Ireland. Previously, he says: “I didn’t really feel like I could be physically attacked. There have been incidents now, in Ireland, where people have been killed because they didn’t speak English.”

Archive: Channel 4 News; YouTube

Anti-immigrant protesters wave Irish flags while confronting line of police officers

The Guardian is editorially independent. And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to all. But we increasingly need our readers to fund our work.

  • Today in Focus

Most popular

Canada Immigration Forum

  • Forums New posts Search Forums
  • Members Registered members Current visitors Recent Activity
  • Free Assessment

Free Study Material for WAEC 2024 Further Mathematics Objective and Essay/Theory questions and answers

  • Thread starter Steadygist
  • Start date Today at 6:36 AM

WAEC 2024 Further Mathematics Objective and Essay/Theory answers is now available. Get Study Material for 2024 WASSCE for School Candidates Further Mathematics answers : Get Verified study guide 2024 WAEC May/June Further Mathematics (Objective, Essay/Theory) OBJ & Theory Questions and Answers for WASSCE for School Candidates material study. 2024 material for WAEC May/June Further Mathematics Questions and Answers (20th May, 2024). Monday, 20th May 2024 Further Mathematics/Mathematics (Elective) 1 2 (Essay/Theory) 9:30am – 12:00pm Further Mathematics/Mathematics (Elective) 1 (Objective) 3:30pm – 5:00pm Material for 2024 WAEC FURTHER MATHEMATICS/MATHEMATICS (ELECTIVE) 2 (ESSAY/THEORY) ANSWERS: Loading................................................... STUDY MATERIAL FOR 2024 WAEC FURTHER MATHEMATICS/MATHEMATICS (ELECTIVE) 2(ESSAY/THEORY) ANSWERS MATERIAL STUDY FOR 2024 WAEC FURTHER MATHEMATICS/MATHEMATICS (ELECTIVE) 1 (OBJECTIVE) ANSWER ====================== CLICK HERE TO GET FULL STUDY MATERIAL ANSWERS Note : Waec 2024 math our paperwork is now available for Study material  

immigration in the 1800s essay

“It’s creating more issues than it’s actually solving”: OKC Police Chief weighs in on new immigration law

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — Several police departments are taking a stand against a controversial new immigration law.

“It’s creating more issues than it’s actually solving,” said Oklahoma City Police Chief Wade Gourley.

Chief Gourley raised concern about a new immigration law, first requested by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

OK AG: No ‘stop and frisk, ask for your papers’ when law targeting undocumented immigrants goes into effect

“If you’re here illegally and committing a crime, I advise you to go ahead and move out of Oklahoma right now,” AG Drummond previously told News 4.

Chief Gourley said the purpose of the law is to address illegal immigration, marijuana, and drug trafficking in Oklahoma.

“[Which I] Totally agree with,” said Gourley.

The law targets any non-US citizen living in Oklahoma committing a crime, and it gives officers the authority to make arrests based on immigration status.

Governor Kevin Stitt said police must have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime before asking about their immigration status.

“We have to have border security. We’re going to be a law and order state,” said Governor Kevin Stitt.

While he expected the law, Gourley felt it is much too broad.

In a letter, the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police and Metro Law Enforcement Agency Leaders said they were not consulted before the bill was written.

“I’ve been a chief of a major city for five years, largest agency in the state. Wouldn’t hurt to bring me to the table,” said Chief Gourley.

The new law takes effect July 1.

“Is that enough time?” asked News 4.

“No,” said Gourley. “It’s just not possible.”

Now, the department is working on a way to carry out this law.

“The only way you can follow that is everybody has to be asked about their status,” said Gourley. “We don’t have the ability to run immigration status. We would have to count on another federal entity to do that.”

For years, OKCPD has worked to build trust with immigrant communities. Now, he feels all of that is lost.

“We’re going to be right back to square one,” said Gourley.

“Do you think people will be hesitant to call 911 even if someone’s hurt?” asked News 4.

“Definitely. And it already occurs,” said Gourley. “They’re not going to call us now to report crimes.”

Gourley said he knows crime must be stopped, but he does not believe this is the way to do it.

“Let’s try to get common sense law that targets that criminal element, not the entire immigrant community,” said Gourley.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to Oklahoma City.

“It’s creating more issues than it’s actually solving”: OKC Police Chief weighs in on new immigration law


  1. US immigration during the 1800s

    immigration in the 1800s essay

  2. The Great Migration & Essay Example

    immigration in the 1800s essay

  3. Immigration and Migration Essay

    immigration in the 1800s essay

  4. U.S. Immigration in the 1800s

    immigration in the 1800s essay

  5. 📚 Immigration to America in Late 1800s: Reasons & Effects

    immigration in the 1800s essay

  6. Classifying Immigrants in Colonial America.docx

    immigration in the 1800s essay


  1. 1800s Immigration

  2. The real story behind U.S. immigration debate

  3. Reading About Life In The 1800/1900's and a Walk Through Our House

  4. Immigration to America 1800s

  5. Employee Security in the US: Immigration and Labor Laws

  6. Immigration in the Mid-1800s


  1. Immigration to the United States, 1851-1900

    Immigration to the United States, 1851-1900 Group of Immigrants Cabinet of American Illustration. In the late 1800s, people in many parts of the world decided to leave their homes and immigrate to the United States. Fleeing crop failure, land and job shortages, rising taxes, and famine, many came to the U. S. because it was perceived as the ...

  2. Immigration and Migration

    Immigration and Migration | | The United States emerged in the last third of the nineteenth century as an industrial powerhouse, producing goods that then circulated around the world. People in distant countries used American-made clothes, shoes, textiles, machines, steel, oil, rubber, and tools, among other finished products. They also ate foods grown in American soil and relied upon America ...

  3. U.S. Immigration Timeline: Definition & Reform

    1880: As America begins a rapid period of industrialization and urbanization, a second immigration boom begins. Between 1880 and 1920, more than 20 million immigrants arrive. The majority are from ...

  4. Background Essay on Late 19th and Early 20th Century Immigration

    This summary of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century immigration describes the "new immigration" that originated from Southern and Eastern Europe. The essay also outlines American responses to the new wave of immigration, including some of the laws designed to restrict immigration that were adopted between 1880 and 1910.

  5. Immigration and the American Industrial Revolution From 1880 to 1920

    In this study, we have estimated the representation of the immigrant population, including the children and grandchildren of immigrants, in the industrial transformation of the American workforce from 1880 to 1920. This exercise involves a number of assumptions, mostly about the relative proportionality of the 3 rd generation in 1920 to the 2 ...

  6. Early American Immigration Policies

    Early American Immigration Policies. Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and rarely questioned that policy until the late 1800s. After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared regulation of immigration a federal responsibility.

  7. PDF Two Centuries of US Immigration Policy, 1790-1986

    2. (a) That the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted under the immigration laws to the United States in any fiscal year shall be limited to 3 per centum of the number of foreign- born persons of such nationality resident in the United States as determined by the United States census of 1910. . . .

  8. UNCOVER 19th Century IMMIGRATION Secrets

    During the early 1800s, the primary source of immigrants to the United States was Europe. ... related to immigration during the 19th century. This includes laws, regulations, court records, and administrative papers that shed light on the immigration process and its impact. These primary sources contain a wide range of information about 19th ...

  9. Immigration to the U.S. in the Late 1800s

    Immigration to the U.S. in the Late 1800s. Between 1870 and 1900, the largest number of immigrants continued to come from northern and western Europe including Great Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia. But "new" immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were becoming one of the most important forces in American life.

  10. PDF Finding a Balance in Education: Immigration, Diversity, and Schooling

    By the late 1800s America's schools were flooded with immigrant children. American schools were left with the difficult task of educating a predominantly non-English speaking population. In New York City in 1890, the foreign born population was approximately 639,943 when the cities entire population was 1,515,301.

  11. PDF David H. Bennett, Syracuse University

    An EssAy from 19th CEntury u.s. nEwspApErs DAtAbAsE Immigration and Immigrants: Anti-immigrant sentiment A sweeping tide of immigration across the nineteenth cen-tury brought new ethnic and religious diversity to a grow-ing nation. But the newcomers would face intense hostil-ity: antialien movements flourished in the years before the

  12. U.S. Immigration in the 1800s

    The 1800s in particular is one of the eras known for high levels of immigration. In fact a look at U.S. immigration statistics by decade shows that according to the U.S. Census, foreign-born persons were about 15% of the population by 1890. The high immigration statistics in the 19th century were largely fueled by large numbers of Irish and ...

  13. Essay 4: Immigration, Exclusion, and Resistance, 1800s-1940s

    Essay 4: Immigration, Exclusion, and Resistance, 1800s-1940s. Oakland, Calif., Mar. 1942. A large sign reading "I am an American" placed in the window of a store, at [401 - 403 Eighth] and Franklin streets, on December 8, the day after Pearl Harbor. The store was closed following orders to persons of Japanese descent to evacuate from certain ...

  14. Immigration Records

    The National Archives has immigration records for arrivals to the United States from foreign ports between approximately 1820 and December 1982 (with gaps). The records are arranged by port or airport of arrival. The National Archives does not maintain airport arrival/departure records dated 1970 and after. Use Form NATF 81 or order online to ...

  15. Handout A: Background Essay

    Background Essay—The History of Immigration Law in the United States. Directions: ... It was not until World War II, when China was a military ally of the United States, that the ban on Chinese immigration was lifted. For most of the 1800s, the main sources of immigrants to the United States were British, Irish, German, Scandinavian, and ...

  16. PDF Emigration, Immigration and Migration in Nineteenth-Century Britain

    immigration into Britain quickened after 1815, but it was during the 1840s and 1850s that it dramatically swelled as a result of the potato famine in Ireland (1845-51). By 1861 the Irish-born population in England and Wales had risen to 602,000 (3 percent of the population) and to 204,000 in Scotland (7 percent). Many

  17. Immigrant Records at the National Archives

    Among the billions of historical records housed at the National Archives throughout the country, researchers can find information relating to immigrants from the late 1700s through the early 2000s. The National Archives preserves and makes available documents created by Federal agencies in the course of their daily business.

  18. PDF Immigration in Lowell

    Mill owners needed workers, and the Irish were ready to work. More were arriving daily, fleeing the potato famine in Ireland. By 1860, about 1/4 of the 37,000 people in Lowell were Irish. Lowell continued to grow during the 1800s, as more and more workers were needed. Beginning in the 1860s, thousands of French-Canadians moved south from Quebec ...

  19. Immigration In The 1800s Essay

    The United States experienced major waves of Immigrants during the War time and the 1800's and early 1900's. 25,000 Asian Immigrants went to California for a gold rush and migrated there by the 1850's. A lot of Immigration had to do with slaves and such. During the 1890's Central, and Eastern Europe came to America, so did the Italians ...

  20. Immigration In The 1800s Essay

    Decent Essays. 509 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. Immigration In the late 1800s , America became the land of new opportunities and new beginnings and New York City became the first landmark for immigrants. New York City was home to Ellis Island, the area in which migrants were to be handed for freedom to enter the nation.

  21. Immigration Reform In The Late 1800s

    Immigration Reform In The Late 1800s. Decent Essays. 933 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. In recent history, many Americans have had a growing concern for the immigration (both legal and illegal) growth in our country. While the United States of America was settled by European immigrants, the unprecedented growth the late 1800s saw, led to reform ...

  22. Immigration In The 1800s

    Immigration Law Between 1800 And 1875 Essay. Between 1800 and 1875, immigration laws were regulated and enforced at the state level. However, in 1875, Congress began to regulate some aspects of national immigration law. Despite the country's origin as a nation allegedly built by immigrants for immigrants in order to foster economic ...

  23. Picturing immigration: Conserving the past in person

    "The Bay and Harbor of New York" depicts Irish immigrants arriving in New York in the mid-1800s The McGowans are not working on the painting in a studio, but in a first-floor gallery at the ...

  24. The Guardian

    We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.

  25. Free Study Material for WAEC 2024 Further Mathematics Objective and

    WAEC 2024 Further Mathematics Objective and Essay/Theory answers is now available. Get Study Material for 2024 WASSCE for School Candidates Further... Client Portal +1 ... Canada Immigration Network. CIC News Canadian Immigration Forum Canadian Immigration News CanadaVisa News Team. Connect with us. Call us +1 (514) 937-9445.

  26. Emigration, Immigration and Migration in Nineteenth-Century Britain

    Emigration. While the number of immigrants entering Britain during the nineteenth century was not insignificant, during every decade after the 1830s, emigration from Britain vastly exceeded immigration. Between 1815 and 1914, approximately ten million people emigrated from Britain—about 20 percent of all European emigrants.

  27. "It's creating more issues than it's actually solving": OKC Police

    Chief Gourley raised concern about a new immigration law, first requested by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. OK AG: No 'stop and frisk, ask for your papers' when law targeting ...

  28. Former US Border Patrol agent sentenced to 1.5 years for offering

    Castillo allegedly made a stop along the way and told the migrant he could get them "papeles," or immigration papers, for $5,000, the affidavit said.