Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2017
This article addresses the origins of the immigration restriction movement in the late 19th century United States, a movement that realized its aims in the early 20th. It critiques the dominant scholarly interpretation, which holds that the movement sprang from a racism that viewed the new immigrants of this period as biologically inferior. It argues first that activists did not have at hand a biological theory sufficient to this characterization and did not employ one. It argues second that the movement arose as an adroit political response to labor market competition. The Republican Party recognized the discontent of resident workers (including those of older immigrant origin) with competition from new immigrants. The Party discerned ethnic differences among new and old immigrants and capitalized on these conditions in order to win elections. Ethnocentrism and middle-class anxiety over mass immigrant added to a movement that depended on bringing working class voters into the Party.
Research for this article was supported by the Massachusetts Historical Society’s 2011 Twentieth-Century Fellowship. An early version was presented in the “Journeys” Invited Lecture Series of the Melbern G. Glasscock Humanities Center at Texas A&M University. I am indebted for contributions made by Walter Kamphoefner and Catherine O’Donnell, and by my immigration history students, in particular Carmel Dooling, Alexander Petrusak, Quinton Scribner, and Pete Van Cleave.
Epigraph: Garrison (son of the abolitionist) vilified John B. Fiske, indicting Lodge for the same crime. Garrison, “Condemns the Lodge Bill,” Boston Herald, 17 January 1898, George F. Hoar Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston (hereafter Hoar Papers, MHS).
1. John Higham’s Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (New Brunswick, N.J., 2007), first published in 1956. In the Epilogue to the 2007 edition, Higham repented of his dismissal of demographic and social factors (342–43). Barbara Miller Solomon’s still valuable book, Ancestors and Immigrants (Cambridge, 1956) first featured explicit racial prejudice as the source of restrictionism, especially among elite figures like Lodge.
2. The special issue featured David Roediger and others who assert that the nineteenth century witnessed the “turn” toward race but they offer no new evidence for that argument. Jacobson, Matthew, Whiteness of a Different Color (Cambridge, 1999), 14, 77–78.Google Scholar As to the antebellum period, Hidetaka Hirota dismisses racism as a source of nativism, finding welfare costs and economic concerns the central concerns. Expelling the Poor (New York, 2017). Jacobson also charges Lodge with anti-Semitism, relying on a secondary source that relies on a secondary source. He may have been anti-Semitic, but in this case Lodge was referring to Poles rather than Jews (183–4). Lee, Erika, “The Chinese Exclusion Example: Race, Immigration, and American Gatekeeping, 1882–1924,” Journal of American Ethnic History 21, no. 3 (Spring 2002): 47.Google Scholar Zolberg, Aristide, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (Cambridge, 2006), here 213, 214.Google Scholar Fitzgerald, David and Cook-Martin, David, Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the America, (Cambridge, 2014), here 137Google Scholar; Tichenor, Daniel Dividing Lines (Princeton, 2002), 79Google Scholar. Leonard, Thomas C., Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era (Princeton, 2016), 126–27, 130, 143–46.Google Scholar In marked contrast, neither Higham, Strangers (157), nor Mae Ngai find racial views significant in the late nineteenth century, noting the primacy of “cultural nationalism” and a persistent belief in assimilation. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, 2004), 23.
3. On the necessary distinction between racism and ethnocentrism, see Frederickson, George, Racism: A Short History (Princeton, 2002), 5–7, 54Google Scholar; and Higham, Strangers, 134, 335. George Ward Stocking Jr., “Lamarckianism in American Social Science, 1890–1915,” in Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology (New York, 1968); and “The Turn-of-the-Century Concept of Race,” in Delimiting Anthropology: Occasional Essays and Reflections (Madison, 2001). See also Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (New York, 1997 ); and Hannaford, Ivan, Race: The History of an Idea in the West (Washington, D.C., 1996).Google Scholar
4. Solomon, Ancestors, 116; Leonard, Illiberal Reformers, 126–27. For extended treatments of Anglo-Saxonism, see Solomon, Ancestors, chap. 4, and Edward N. Saveth, American Historians and European Immigrants, 1875–1925 (New York, 1948), chaps. 1 and 2. The best account is Adams, Bluford, “World Conquerors or a Defeated People? Racial Theory, Regional Anxiety, and the Brahmin Anglo-Saxonists,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 8, no. 2 (April 2009): 189–215Google Scholar. Solomon, Jacobson, and other race theorists also employ Lodge’s 1891 article, “The Distribution of Ability in the United States,” to prove his belief in immutable, biological characteristics. Though he concludes that Americans of English background dominated most fields of achievement, Lodge does not mention hereditary traits. Rather than a racial argument, he endeavored to demonstrate the governing effects of environment: Southerners, men of “the same race-stocks and of like traditions” as Northerners, had achieved less because slavery “warped the community in which it flourished.” Henry Cabot Lodge, “The Distribution . . . ,” The Century, September 1891, 687–94 (693–94). For a conventional interpretation of the essay as a racist exercise, see Roediger, David and Barrett, James, “Making New Immigrants . . . ,” in Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States, ed. Foner, Nancy and Frederickson, George M. (New York, 2004).Google Scholar
5. Mayo-Smith derides the “vague generalities” that ascribe “institutions and national characteristics to the influence of race,” satirizing Herbert Bancroft’s reliance on “inherited Anglo-Saxon traits.” “Theories of Mixtures of Races and Nationalities,” Yale Review III (1894): 166–86 (166); Adams, “World Conquerors,” describes the decline of Teutonist theory in the 1890s, even among erstwhile advocates. For Strong’s persistent environmentalism, see his The Challenge of the City (New York, 1907), 165; for that of Fiske, see Solomon, Ancestors, 130–31.
6. Stocking, “Lamarckianism,” 244, 255–56.
7. “Assimilation of Nationalities in the United States. I,” Political Science Quarterly 9, no. 3 (September 1894): 426–44 (428–29), and “Assimilation. II,” Political Science Quarterly 9, no. 4 (December 1894): 649–70 (670).
8. Petit, The Men and Women We Want (Rochester, 2010), 35; Hannaford, Race. On Ripley’s continued confusion about heredity, see Stocking, “The Critique of Racial Formalism.” In Race (2001), 163–65.
9. John Gerring, Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996 (Cambridge, 2001); Jensen, Richard, The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888–1896 (Chicago, 1971), chap. 5Google Scholar. Kleppner, Paul, Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics, 1850–1900 (New York, 1970)Google Scholar. Ulrich, Robert J., The Bennett Law of Eighteen Eighty-Nine: Education and Politics in Wisconsin (Manchester, N.H., 1981).Google Scholar For a summary and critique of the ethnocultural model, see Oestreicher, Richard, “Urban Working-Class Political Behavior and Theories of American Electoral Politics, 1870–1940,” Journal of American History 74, no. 4 (March 1988): 1257–86Google Scholar. Hoar, Autobiography of Seventy Years, vol. 1 (New York, 1903), 386.
11. For efforts, often successful, to lure immigrant voters, see Rippley, Lavern J., The Immigrant Experience in Wisconsin (Boston, 1985)Google Scholar, and Cherney, Robert W., Populism, Progressivism, and the Transformation of Nebraska Politics, 1885–1915 (Lincoln, 1981), 28–34Google Scholar. Biographical sketches indicate that numerous mid-level party leaders were of British, Canadian, Scandinavian, and German origin. Smith, Joseph Patterson, History of the Republican Party of Ohio, vols. 1 and 2 (Chicago, 1898)Google Scholar; Raum, Green Berry, History of Illinois Republicanism (Chicago, 1900).Google Scholar
12. “Third Annual Message,” 8 December 1863. Senate Report No. 15, 18 February, 1864. Thirty-eighth Congress, First Session. All references to presidential statements, national party platforms, etc., are drawn from “The American Presidency Project,” ed. John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php (accessed 20 June 2016). “An Act to Encourage Immigration,” c. 246, 13 Stat. 385 (1864); Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., 1st sess., app., 1–2. Charlotte Erickson, American Industry and the European Immigrant (Cambridge, 1957), 7–8, 10, 25.
13. For the act’s provisions, see Erickson, American Industry, and Morrell Heald, “Business Attitudes Toward European Immigration, 1861–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1951), chap. 2.
14. Subject to extreme criticism for the law’s indenture provisions, employers did little to defend it in Congress. Heald, “Business Attitudes,” and Erickson, American Industry. Zeidel reports that twenty-five of thirty-eight states had contract labor provisions in the 1860s and 1870s. Robert Fredric Zeidel, “The Literacy Test for Immigrants: A Question of Progress” (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1986), 17.
15. Smith, Ohio, 1: 175 and 317.
17. Business leaders brazenly demanded specific duties; in exchange, they gave the party cash. Fred Chester Shoemaker, “Mark Hanna and the Transformation of the Republican Party” (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1992), 124, 156. Richard Krooth, A Century Passing: Carnegie, Steel, and the Fate of Homestead (Lanham, Md., 2004), 100. Smith, Ohio, 1: 468.
18. Gen. Conftor (? illegible) letter to Hoar, 15 January 1878, Hoar Papers, Folder “January 15–20,” Carton 20, MHS. “Duties” on coffee and tea were in fact excise taxes. For intermittent working-class support of the tariff, see Cooper, Lyle W., “The Tariff and Organized Labor,” American Economic Review 20, no. 2 (June 1930): 210–25Google Scholar, and Krooth, A Century Passing.
19. Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Relations between Capital and Labor (1885), vol. 1, 1139–40, and The Pittsburgh Press, 18 December 1918.
20. Congressional Record, 48th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 15, 5349. See also “Foran, Martin Ambrose (1844–1921),” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–Present, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000254 (accessed 25 May 2016); Elroy McKendree Avery, A History of Cleveland and Its Environs, vol. 2 (New York, 1918), 270; and Foran, M. A., The Other Side: A Social Study Based on Fact (Cleveland, 1886), iii.Google Scholar Ethnocentric conflict in the working class is well documented in David Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor (Cambridge, 1987), 81–87. For an example familiar to Foran, see Henry B. Leonard, “Ethnic Cleavage and Industrial Conflict in Late Nineteenth-Century America: The Cleveland Rolling Mill Company Strikes of 1882 and 1885,” Labor History 20, no. 4 (1979): 524–48.
21. Union leaders were quite likely to be foreign born or of immigrant origin. Brody, David, In Labor’s Cause: Main Themes on the History of the American Worker (Oxford, 1993) 106–10.Google Scholar Mink, Gwendolyn, Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development, 1875–1920 (Ithaca, 1986)Google Scholar, is most emphatic that the conflict between immigrant groups had racial tones. See, for example, 45–46. In contrast, Lane, Andrew, Survival or Solidarity: American Labor and European Immigrants, 1830–1924 (Westport, Conn., 1987)Google Scholar, attributes little of the struggle for immigration restriction to union leaders’ racist views of new immigrants.
22. Frank A. Flower, “Second Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics, 1885–1886” (Madison, 1886), xxv, xxviii, 416–21. Flower was a prominent Republican journalist, author, and officeholder in Wisconsin; Evelyn O. Koepke, “The Self-Styled Greeley of Wisconsin: Frank Abial Flower” (Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1967).
23. Flower, “Third Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics, 1887–1888” (Madison, 1888), xxvi–vii, 69, and 52.
24. Gary Richardson examined these surveys in “The Origins of Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: Evidence from the Heartland in the Age of Mass Migration,” Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy 5, no. 1 (June 2005): 1–46. The additional analyses presented here used data available through the University of California Historical Labor Statistics Project Series, http://eh.net/databases/labor/ (accessed 21 January 2016).
25. The Nation 44, no. 1131 (3 March 1887), 181. See also 44, no. 1134 (24 March 1887), 240.
26. Translations of foreign-language newspapers are available through the Newberry Library’s online version of the Chicago Foreign Language Press Survey, a project carried out by the Works Project Administration (hereafter FLP, WPA), issued in 1942: flps.newberry.org (accessed July 5, 2016). Scandinaven, 18 April 1896; Svenska Tribunen-Nybeter, 10 January 1923, and see 23 January 1924 and 6 June 1923; Scandia, 22 February 1913, and see 28 January 1911.
27. FLP, WPA: Radnicka Straza, 9 April 1916; Adenpost, 7 January 1915. For the Adenpost’s opposition to restriction and to the unions they saw behind the movement, see 14 January 1894. Washington Post, 5 January 1896.
28. Report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, and Testimony Taken by the Committee on Immigration of the Senate and the Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives Under Concurrent Resolution of March 12, 1890, 51st Cong., 2nd sess., 14 January 1891, H. Rept. 3472 (Serial 2886), here 938, 930, and 812. (Hearings were conducted in 1890.) See especially 928–37 (Wolff), and testimony of Herman(n) Raster, editor of the Illinois Statts-Zeitung, 639–52. For Scandinavian and “Bohemian” witnesses, see 673–83. For opposing views among representatives of German aid societies, see 592–94 and 776; Jewish, Italian, and other new immigrant witnesses uniformly opposed new restrictions, and labor union representatives near as uniformly supported them, though Samuel Gompers had not yet become a restrictionist (93). Fairchild, Henry Pratt, “The Literacy Test and Its Making,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 31, no. 3 (May 1917): 447–60.Google Scholar Zeidel examines this congressional testimony in “Literacy Test,” 42–45.
29. Robert Zeidel, “Knute Nelson and the Immigration Question: A Political Dilemma,” Minnesota History (Summer 1999): 328–44.
30. Boynton, H. W., “The American Character,” North American Review 183, no. 604 (7 December 1906): 1182–86(1185).Google Scholar
31. Hoar, letter to Lodge, 18 March 1883, as quoted in David Wendell Dotson, “Henry Cabot Lodge: A Political Biography” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oklahoma, 1980), 81–82, 84–85; and Hoar, Autobiography, 1: 331.
32. Lodge reviews his work in the 1883 campaign with anxiety and satisfaction in his Diary, entries for 1883–84, Correspondence, Henry Cabot Lodge Papers, MHS (hereafter Lodge Papers). See John A. Garraty, Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biography (New York, 1953), 62, 68, 230–32.
33. “Senator Hoar Tells of the Battles Won by Worcester Voters,” dated 13 November . Lodge Scrapbooks, MHS.
34. Constituency estimates employ data drawn from Steven Ruggles et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database] (Minneapolis, 2010), http://usa.ipums.org/usa/cite.shtml (accessed 13 October 2014). Additional data taken from Edgar Truesdell, The Canadian Born in the United States: An Analysis of the Statistics of the Canadian Element in the Population of the United States, 1850 to 1930 (New Haven, 1943).
35. Massachusetts did not allow unnaturalized aliens to vote. Rosberg, Gerald M., “Aliens and Equal Protection: Why Not the Right to Vote?” Michigan Law Review 75, nos. 5–6 (April–May 1977): 1092–1136.Google Scholar
36. Jensen, The Winning; Kleppner, Cross; Ronald Berthoff, British Immigrants in Industrial America (Cambridge, 1953), and Boyesen, H. H., “The Scandinavian in the United States,” North American Review 155 (July–December 1892): 528–35.Google Scholar
37. McCready to Hoar, 23 September 1887, Folder “September 21–30.” See also McCready to Hoar, 16 October 1887, Folder “October 11–20,” Hoar Papers, MHS.
38. Glasgow, Treasurer of the Worcester Republican Club, letter to Hoar, 7 October, Folder “October 1–10,” Hoar Papers, MHS.
39. Thomas, letter to Hoar, 25 March 1896, Folder “March 19–25, 1896,” Hoar Papers, MHS.
40. Lodge to Doering, 1 May 1892. Correspondence, Lodge Papers, MHS. Hoar, “Are the Republicans in to Stay?” North American Review 149 (July–December 1889): 616–24.
41. Argersinger, Peter H., “The Value of the Vote: Political Representation in the Gilded Age,” Journal of American History 76, no. 1 (June 1989): 59–90.Google Scholar
42. Schriftgeisser, Karl, The Gentleman from Massachusetts: Henry Cabot Lodge (Boston, 1944), 60.Google Scholar
43. Sunday Record, 7 November 1886, Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS. Newspaper accounts and unsigned analyses of election returns in this section of Lodge’s papers reveal a search for positions friendly to labor, with continued reliance on the tariff and liberal Civil War pensions.
44. Lodge, Diary, 2 November 1886, Lodge Papers, MHS. Schriftgeisser, Gentleman, 72–73, 90–91. Dotson, “Henry Cabot Lodge,” 96–97.
45. Lyman to Lodge, 23 December 1897, G. H. Lyman Papers, MHS. “Address Before the Citizens of Nahant, Memorial Day, 1882; see also Boston Daily Advertizer, 11 August 1882, Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS.
46. Lodge, “The Tariff Question,” New York Independent, 28 August 1888. Scrapbook, 1887–90, Lodge Papers, MHS. See quick coverage of Lodge’s position in other papers, e.g., 29 August 1888 in Oshkosh Daily Northwestern. Bishop William Lawrence’s hagiographic biography states without citation that Lodge first publicly called for restriction in 1887. William Lawrence, Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biographical Sketch (Boston, 1925), 65.
47. Lodge, “New Immigration Laws Needed,” The Laster, 15 December 1888, Scrapbook, 1887–90, Lodge Papers, MHS. Lodge’s speeches explicitly link the tariff to immigration restriction, with strong response from audiences. See Lodge, “At the Harvard Meeting in Tremont Tempe, Speech of Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge,” 2 November 1888, Lodge Papers, MHS.
48. At the Harvard Meeting . . . ,” [no newspaper title], 21 October 1888, “Restrict Immigration,” Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS.
49. “Mr. Lodge at Everett,” Morning, 24 October 1890, Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS.
50. Speeches and Addresses of William McKinley: From His Election to Congress to the Present Time (New York, 1893), 237–38. Hans P. Voight references this speech in The Bully Pulpit and the Melting Pot: American Presidents and the Immigrant, 1897–1933 (Macon, Ga., 2004), 21 n. 50. H. Wayne Morgan, William McKinley and His America, rev. ed. (Kent, Ohio, 2003), links McKinley’s support of the tariff and immigration restriction to the demands of his working-class constituency; see 45–56. Jensen, The Winning, reports the first official Republican party opposition in 1886 in Pennsylvania; see 259–60. Smith, Ohio, 1: 539 and see 535.
51. In Winning the Midwest, Jensen argued that McKinley campaigned by “offering pluralism to the American people” (291), a view repeated in “Comparative Nativism: The United States, Canada, and Australia, 1880s–1910s,” Canadian Issues/Thèmes Canadiens (Spring 2009): 45–55. Similar readings can be found in Kevin Phillips, William McKinley (New York, 2003). Rauchway, Eric, “William McKinley and Us,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 4, no. 3 (July 2005): 235–53Google Scholar; Morgan, William McKinley; Voight, Bully Pulpit; Zeidel, “Literacy Test”; and Roger Daniels, Guarding the Gate, esp. 33.
52. Charles S. Olcott recognized this political reality: William McKinley: Part 1 American Statesmen Series (Boston, 1972, reprint of 1916 publication), esp. 58 and 130. See also Shoemaker, “Mark Hanna,” 194 and 203. For an insightful treatment of McKinley’s efforts to win labor votes, a necessity in his district and part of his vision for broader success for the party, see Waksmundski, John, “Governor McKinley and the Working Man,” The Historian 38, no. 4 (August 1976): 629–47.Google Scholar
53. Wallace, Lew and Halstead, Murat, Life and Public Services of Hon. Benjamin Harrison, President of the U.S. With a Concise Biographical Sketch of Hon. Whitelaw Reid, Ex–Minister to France (Philadelphia, 1892), 334, 357.Google Scholar
54. Hutchinson, E. P., Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798–1965 (Philadelphia, 1981), 104–5Google Scholar. By the 50th Congress (1887–89), multiple petitions for relief from immigration were filed annually (93–109). Zeidel treats rising congressional attention in the late 1880s in Literacy Test (34ff.).
55. Staats-Zeitung, 23 May 1888. Robert Zeidel, Immigrants, Progressives, and Exclusion Politics, 1900–1927 (DeKalb, Ill., 2004), citing Immigration Restriction League materials, finds extensive newspaper editorial support for restriction; see 18ff.
56. In the Senate of the United States, 22 May 1890, ordered to be printed, Mr. Chandler, from the Committee on Immigration, submitted the following report: Immigration investigation. Report / 51st Cong., 1st sess., Senate, no. 1095.
57. Bemis, “Restriction of Immigration,” Andover Review 53, no. 211 (March 1888): 251–64 (263). Bemis provided the political logic, but condemnation of illiteracy in the new immigrants was au courant; workers in the Wisconsin survey had called for an “educational qualification.” See as well, Terence Powderly, “A Menacing Irruption,” North American Review 147, no. 381 (August 1888): 165–75.
58. “The Restriction of Immigration,” North American Review 152, no. 410 (January 1891): 27–36 (27, 28, 36).
59. Report of the Select Committee; Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration and Contract-Labor Laws, H. Rept. 2206, 52nd Cong., 2nd sess., 7 January 1893 (Serial 3140).
60. Bemis, “Restriction of Immigration,” 263.
61. William Phalen, But They Did Not Build This House: The Attitude of Evangelical Protestantism Towards Immigration to the United States (Ph.D. diss., Rutgers, 2010). The quotations are from The Congregationalist, “Restricting Immigration,” 10 July 1884, and “Guarding the Door,” 11 June 1891, as cited in Phalen, 196–97.
62. The Nation 44, no. 1134 (24 March 1887): 240.
63. For speeches, see The Boston Journal, 29 May , “Earnest Republicans” and The New York Recorder, 31 July 1891, “The Restriction of Immigration,” Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS.
64. Lodge, “The Restriction,” 30, 35. The lack of capacity for responsible citizenship had also been a central theme of antebellum nativism, which criticized the authoritarian Catholic religion immigrants followed. Walker had sparked attention to new immigrants by (spuriously) correlating native fertility decline to immigration. “Immigration and Degradation,” Forum 11 (August 1891): 634–44. By 1896 his views about immigrant quantity, quality, and suitability for self-government mirrored those of Lodge, shifting toward a racial view. See Walker, “Restriction of Immigration,” Atlantic Monthly 77, no. 464 (June 1896): 822–29.
65. Lodge, “Lynch Law and Unrestricted Immigration,” North American Review 152, no. 414 (May 1891): 602–12 (605). Lodge repeatedly condemned “birds of passage” as poor citizenship material and “a constant drain on our resources.” See Lodge to W. I. Gilbert, 18 January 1897, Lodge Correspondence, Lodge Papers, MHS.
66. Lodge, “Lynch Law,” 608–9, 611. For his attentiveness to the tragedy’s political potential, see Boston Journal, 3 June 1891, and “The Restriction of Immigration,” The New York Recorder, 31 July 1891, Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS.
67. “Mr. Lodge Talks Politics,” New York Recorder, 5 November 1891, 152, Scrapbook, Lodge Collection, MHS.
68. 29 December 1890, Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS. Clippings detail formation of the club, its membership, and platform. Lodge employed immigration restriction in his speeches while a Representative from 1891 to 1892, Scrapbook, 119–26, Lodge Collection, MHS; and see Rachel Leah Hershfield, “The Immigration Restriction League: A Study of the League’s Impact on American Immigration Policy, 1894–1924” (Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, 1993), 56–57. For subsequent advocacy, see “Senator Lodge,” 9 August 9 1894, Scrapbook, Lodge Papers, MHS, with speeches addressing such themes as “Immigration and Labor.” See “Dedham Rally,” 19 October 1894, Lodge Papers, MHS. Lodge, “The Census and Immigration,” Century 46 (September 1893): 737–39 (737).
69. Lodge, “The Census and Immigration,” 737, and 7 January 1892, “To Mr. Manchester,” Correspondence, Lodge Papers, MHS.
70. Dotson, “Henry Cabot Lodge,” 151.
71. In addition to the standard treatments of the League, such as Solomon, Ancestors, see Hershfield, “The Immigration Restriction League,” esp. 50–52. Hutchinson, Legislative History, 102, 108.
72. Lodge to O’Kane, 1 May 1892. Lodge to A. C. Lodge, 17 September 1893, as quoted in Dotson, 185; Lodge to Prof. L. Amateis, 21 March 1896; Lodge to Samuel Closson, 21 February 1896; Lodge to Grattan, 13 March 1896; Lodge to A. J. Brush, 20 January 1897, Correspondence, Lodge Papers, MHS.
73. Wolcott, Boston Journal, 12 October 1895, “Race and Religion,” Hoar Papers, MHS.
74. For state platforms and local calls for restriction before and after the convention, see New York Times, 17 and 24 April, 17 and 12 September 1896; Los Angeles Times, 22 and 28 April; 5, 7, and 8 May; 25 August, 12 September, and 30 October 1896; Washington Post, 15 May 1896.
75. New York Times, 28 June 1896; Hartford Courant, 27 August 1896.
76. Los Angeles Times, 10 November 1896; New York Times, 28 June, 11 September, 10 November 1896; Hartford Courant, 27 August 1896; Washington Post, 13 and 22 September and 21 November 1896.
77. House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Amending the Immigration Laws, 54th Cong., 1st sess., 1896, H. Rep. 1079, 1.
78. Lodge to Martin M. Woods, 1 April 1896; to “Mr. Hayes,” 15 February 1897; to Robert (de Courcy) Ward, 20 February 1897.
79. Lodge to F.W. A. Poppie, 28 January 1897; to Prescott F. Hall, 24 December 1896, 9 and 29 January 1897; to William C. Brensman, 1 February 1897; Lodge to Hayes, 15 February 1897. Ward and Hall were major figures in the Immigration Restriction League; Lodge urged them to have the League press for the legislation.
80. For voting records and tallies, see GovTrack.us (accessed 15 April 2016) and Hutchinson, Legislative History, 116–21. In both houses, negative votes came principally from Southern Democrats.
81. Lodge to “Guild” [Curtis Guild Jr.], 18 February 1897, Correspondence, Lodge Papers, MHS.
82. Lodge, “Immigration Regulations,” Congressional Record, 54th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 28, part 3, 16 March 1896, 2817–18, republished as “The Restriction of Immigration,” in Henry Cabot Lodge, Speeches and Addresses, 1884–1909 (Boston, 1909): 243–66.
83. Lois Psychologiques . . . (Paris, 1917), 19, 23. Le Bon enjoyed great favor as an iconoclastic thinker in the fin de siècle intellectual world; criticism of his work has enjoyed a longer life. Robert A. Nye, The Origins of Crowd Psychology: Gustave Le Bon and the Crisis of Mass Democracy in the Third Republic (Beverly Hills, 1975).
84. Stocking, “Turn-of-the-Century,” 7–8, 15.
85. “Immigration Regulations,” 2818. As Saveth illustrates, considerable historical gymnastics was required for Lodge to create a Teutonic population in the United States; Saveth, American Historians, 52–53. Ward, “The Transmission of Culture,” The Forum 11 (1891): 312–19.
86. “Immigration Regulations,” 2817, 2819–20.
87. “Immigration Regulations,” 2818–19.
89. “Immigration,” Massachusetts Reform Club, 10 April 1896, Folder: “Immigration, 1891–1905,” Hoar Papers, MHS.
90. Hoar, Autobiography 2:123. Originally in 13 Congressional Record, 1517 (1882).
91. Untitled manuscript dated “Nov. 12 1895 (?).” Hoar papers. Hoar’s tolerance is recounted in Welch, Richard E. Jr., George Frisbie Hoar and the Half-Breed Republicans (Cambridge, 1971), 12, 188Google Scholar, though Welch mistakenly asserts “Hoar’s consistent opposition to immigration restriction,” 193 n. 39.
92. Garrison to Hoar, 18 February 1897; Hoar to Garrison, 19 February 1897, Folder: 18–21 February 1897, Hoar Papers, MHS.
93. Using econometric methods, Hatton, Timothy J. and Williamson, Jeffrey G., Global Migration and the World Economy, (Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar, reject racial interpretations and find that labor market competition best explains restriction in a variety of democratic immigrant-destination states.
95. In this analysis, House Representatives’ votes were mapped to the counties in their districts; district/county etho-demographic data were drawn from the Public Use Sample of the 1920 Census. For the procedures used and a fuller exploration of these data, see Gratton, Brian, “The Demography of Immigration Restriction in the United States,” in Political Demography, ed. Goldstone, J. A. and Kaufmann, E. (Oxford, 2011).Google Scholar