Download to read offline
![Early U.S. Deportation Policy | 33
had previously surfaced in state-level immigration policies. In Pennsyl-
vania, for example, state officials developed a policy of deporting single,
pregnant immigrant women in the 1880s. In 1884 Pennsylvania noted in
“The Second Immigration Report of the Board of Commissioners of Pub-
lic Charities for the Year Ending June 30, 1884” that seventeen persons
were returned to Europe that year. The report writer noted with typical
Victorian delicacy, “Twelve (12) of those were incapacitated for labor on
account of illness, or inability, and five (5) were enciente [sic].” A simi-
lar situation was reported by Frederick Busch, keeper of the Erie County
Almshouse, who noted that his agency had assisted a twenty-four-year-
old German woman who had been sent alone to the United States by the
father of her child and was later returned to Germany by the State Board
of Charities. When immigration was regulated by the states, there were
relatively few legal mechanisms and virtually no resources expended to
address immigration law. Therefore, there was little enforcement regulat-
ing immigrants from Europe until the close of the nineteenth century.7
Some early principles determining the grounds for deportation influ-
enced the development of federal policy. For example, the policy of ex-
cluding or deporting women who were pregnant on the grounds of their
likelihood to become public charges carried over to federal policy follow-
ing the passage of the Immigration Act of 1882, which transferred the en-
forcement of immigration policy to the federal government. Even when
written as gender neutral, immigration laws and policies concerning
sexual morality, economic independence, and public health had signifi-
cantly divergent effects on men and women. Ultimately, the policies that
sought to prevent women who had sexual relations outside of marriage,
defined by evidence of prostitution, nonmarital pregnancy, or adultery,
restricted all women’s ability to immigrate to the United States unaccom-
panied by husbands or fathers. By the early twentieth century, the Bureau
of Immigration used its gate-keeping authority to promote marriage be-
tween partners who were not legally married, a policy that shares similari-
ties with federal initiatives designed to encourage heterosexual marriage
initiated during the Bush administration.The richlydetailed case files and
administrative records of the Bureau of Immigration, housed in the Na-
tional Archives, offer crucial insights into attitudes toward those female
immigrants who immigrated independently from their families and how
those who faced exclusion or deportation proceedings were treated.8
The close regulation of single female immigrants marked a significant
change from earlier in the nineteenth century, when Irish and Scandina-](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5283282-250622085139-43548e1d/75/National-Insecurities-Immigrants-And-Us-Deportation-Policy-Since-1882-Deirdre-M-Moloney-50-2048.jpg)
![36 | Early U.S. Deportation Policy
alone she would doubtless be regarded as admissible, but having arrived
with her sisters, her case should, in my opinion, stand or fall with theirs.”
The youngest sister had admitted having sexual relations once. The offi-
cial concluded that “These three sisters seem to represent an undesirable
lot.” Although the issue of whether fornication constituted moral turpi-
tude was contested within the Bureau of Immigration, he recommended
that their appeal be dismissed on the grounds that they were members of
an undesirable class and as LPC.12
That same day, in another case, an immigrant couple, Paul Overlie and
Anne Moen of Norway, were successful in appealing theirexclusion order.
They were engaged, but not yet married and were excluded at the border
on charges of fornication, a crime of moral turpitude. But, according to
their case file, the couple “claim[ed] to be engaged, that their intentions
are honorable and that they will marry just as soon as they can get started
in this country. They admit having intercourse, but only after betrothal.”
Though Commissioner Clark recommended exclusion, Commissioner-
General Daniel J. Keefe overruled this decision, noting, “Their marriage
would render them admissible. As they are in every other respect desir-
able immigrants, I recommend that their appeal be sustained on condi-
tion that they are married before being landed.”13
A second case shared several similarities. Two Swedish immigrants,
Johan Jansson and Helga Johanson, appealed theirexclusion on grounds of
moral turpitude.They were engaged for “a number of years” but had been
living together before marriage, stating that economic circumstances and
military service had delayed their marriage. Each wore a betrothal ring en-
graved with the date December 24, 1908, and stated their willingness “to
marry at once.” Daniel Keefe stated, “Under the circumstances, however, I
do not think these aliens could be properlyexcluded on the grounds taken
by the board.Their intentions appear to have been sincere and honorable
toward one another and they have regarded themselves virtually married.
They are desirable immigrants in every respect.” Indeed, their case file
notes that they were married at the Quebec Immigration Station before
being admitted to the United States on August 10.14
Immigration officials imposed harsher penalties on some immigrants
whose partnerships were widely accepted in their countries of origin. For
example, in parts of the Caribbean common-law marriages remained rou-
tine and culturally sanctioned, and in Japan relationships that did not
conform to conventional Western ideals of marriage were commonly ac-](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5283282-250622085139-43548e1d/75/National-Insecurities-Immigrants-And-Us-Deportation-Policy-Since-1882-Deirdre-M-Moloney-53-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to National Insecurities Immigrants And Us Deportation Policy Since 1882 Deirdre M Moloney
National Insecurities Immigrants And Us Deportation Policy Since 1882 Deirdre M Moloney
- 1. National Insecurities ImmigrantsAnd Us Deportation Policy Since 1882 Deirdre M Moloney download https://ebookbell.com/product/national-insecurities-immigrants- and-us-deportation-policy-since-1882-deirdre-m-moloney-10566564 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are somerecommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. National Insecurities Deirdre M Moloney https://ebookbell.com/product/national-insecurities-deirdre-m- moloney-53560200 National Physical Therapy Examination Review And Study Guide 25th Edition Osullivan https://ebookbell.com/product/national-physical-therapy-examination- review-and-study-guide-25th-edition-osullivan-44975614 National Infrastructure Planning Handbook 2022 4th Edition Michael Humphries https://ebookbell.com/product/national-infrastructure-planning- handbook-2022-4th-edition-michael-humphries-45209588 Innovations In Pharmaceutical Manufacturing On The Horizon Technical Challenges Regulatory Issues And Recommendations National Academies Of Sciences Engineering And Medicine https://ebookbell.com/product/innovations-in-pharmaceutical- manufacturing-on-the-horizon-technical-challenges-regulatory-issues- and-recommendations-national-academies-of-sciences-engineering-and- medicine-45618080
- 3. Ncertchemistryclass11part 1 NationalCouncil Of Educational Research And Training https://ebookbell.com/product/ncertchemistryclass11part-1-national- council-of-educational-research-and-training-45620926 Ncertchemistryclass11part 2 National Council Of Educational Research And Training https://ebookbell.com/product/ncertchemistryclass11part-2-national- council-of-educational-research-and-training-45642360 The Future Of Atmospheric Chemistry Research Remembering Yesterday Understanding Today Anticipating Tomorrow Illustrated National Academy Of Sciences https://ebookbell.com/product/the-future-of-atmospheric-chemistry- research-remembering-yesterday-understanding-today-anticipating- tomorrow-illustrated-national-academy-of-sciences-46704020 Making The Invisible Visible A History Of The Spitzer Infrared Telescope Facility 19712003 National Space Administration https://ebookbell.com/product/making-the-invisible-visible-a-history- of-the-spitzer-infrared-telescope-facility-19712003-national-space- administration-46944208 Guidelines For The Management Of Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk 2012th Edition National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance https://ebookbell.com/product/guidelines-for-the-management-of- absolute-cardiovascular-disease-risk-2012th-edition-national-vascular- disease-prevention-alliance-47134314
- 6. Verso Running Foot| 1 NATIONAL INSECURITIES
- 7. 2 | VersoRunning Foot NATIONAL
- 8. Verso Running Foot| 3 IMMIGRANTS AND U.S. DEPORTATION POLICY SINCE 1882 DEIRDRE M. MOLONEY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS CHAPEL HILL INSECURITIES
- 9. © 2012 TheUniversity of North Carolina Press All rights reserved Designed by Rich Hendel Set in Merlo and Franklin Gothic types by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Manufactured in the United States of America The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. The University of North Carolina Press has been a member of the Green Press Initiative since 2003. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moloney, Deirdre M. National insecurities : immigrants and U.S. deportation policy since 1882 / Deirdre M. Moloney. — 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8078-3548-7 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. United States—Emigration and immigration—Government policy—History. 2. Immigrants—United States—Social conditions. 3. Women immigrants—Legal status, laws, etc.—United States. 4. Illegal aliens—Government policy—United States—History. 5. Deportation—United States—History. I. Title. JV6483.M645 2012 325.73—dc23 2011042855 Portions of this book previously appeared in two publications: “Women, Sexual Morality, and Economic Dependency in Early Deportation Policy,” Journal of Women’s History 18, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 95–122; © 2006 The Johns Hopkins University Press. “Policing Bodies and Borders: Women, Prostitution, and the Differential Regulation of U.S. Immigration Policy,” in Confronting Global Gender Justice: Women’s Lives, Human Rights, edited by Debra Bergoffen, Paula Ruth Gilbert, Tamara Harvey, and Connie L. McNeely (London: Routledge, 2011). Used by permission. 16 15 14 13 125 4 3 2 1
- 10. In memory ofmy father, DAVID R. MOLONEY 1932–1987 Known for his wit, compassion, and appreciation for a good narrative
- 11. 4 | VersoRunning Foot
- 12. CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 CHAPTER1. Women, Sexuality, and Economic Dependency in Early U.S. Deportation Policy 28 CHAPTER 2. Differential Regulation: Interrogating Sexuality in Europe, in Urban America, and along the Mexican Border 51 CHAPTER 3. Gender, Dependency, and the Likely to Become a Public Charge Provision 79 CHAPTER 4. Loathsome or Contagious: Immigrant Bodies, Disease, and Eugenics and the Borders 105 CHAPTER 5. Clash of Civilizations: Whiteness, Orientalism, and the Limits of Religious Tolerance at the Borders 134 CHAPTER 6. Deportation Based on Politics, Labor, and Ideology 163 CHAPTER 7. Immigrants’ Rights as Human Rights 198 Conclusion 231 APPENDIX A: Excerpts of Major U.S. Legislation Pertaining to Immigration Deportation Policy 239 APPENDIX B: Aliens Removed or Returned, Fiscal Years 1892 to 2008 264 Notes 267 Bibliography 295 Index 311
- 13. ILLUSTRATIONS Caterina Bressi, withher child 29 Natsu Takaya 40 Syrian immigrants in Mexico 118 Point Loma, 1919 154 Katherine Tingley, ca. 1919 156 Children at Point Loma, 1919 157 Marcus Garvey, 1926 184 Marcus Garvey, 1924 187 Claudia Jones with fellow Smith Act defendants 191 Claudia Jones with Paul Robeson, Amy Ashwood Garvey, Eslanda (Essie) Robeson, and unidentified couple, ca. 1959 192 Claudia Jones reviewing a copy of the West Indian Gazette 193 Portrait of Judge Reuben Oppenheimer 205 Ellen Knauff, 1951 216
- 14. ing this book,I have benefited greatly from the support and encourage- ment of many friends, family members, scholars, archivists and librarians, organizations, and students. Early on, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) provided me with a summer stipend that enabled me to visit archival collections in New York City and Minneapolis. A year- long research fellowship at the WoodrowWilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., awarded to me at a critical juncture, pro- vided me with a room of my own to devote to writing, a vibrant scholarly community, and research assistance that was essential to my completing this book. The support I gained there from the entire staff was terrific. I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Lee Hamilton, Michael Van Dusen, and Philippa Strum. Susan Nugent, Lindsay Collins, and many others made my stay there particularly enjoyable. Two groups of Washington-based scholars, the Immigration History Roundtable and the Red Line group, offered me encouragement and valu- able feedback on several chapters. My regular discussions and friendships with my fellow historians Alan Kraut,Tyler Anbinder,Tim Meagher,Tom Guglielmo, Katie Benton-Cohen, and Maddalena Marinari provided me with valuable advice and sharpened my historiographical knowledge. I am grateful to Tyler for reading additional chapters and encouraging me at crucial points, especially in the home stretch. Many meals shared with Philippa Strum, Wendy Williams, Salim Yaqaub, Mary Ellen Curtin, Robyn Muncy, Patricia Sullivan, Marie-Thérèse Connolly, and Matt Dal- lek sustained me through the revision process and kept me in the Wash- ington political loop. Impeccable research assistance from Mary Klatt, Matthew Dingerdissen, Joseph Humire, Ada Valaitis, and Evan Taparata was vital. On behalf of the University of North Carolina Press, Desmond King and Erika Lee read the entire manuscript carefully, and each provided in- sightful and valuable feedback that strengthened the final manuscript. Elaine Maisner, the editor of my first book, expressed her keen interest in this project and introduced me to her colleague, Chuck Grench, who has also been a great editor and highly supportive through this long pro- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the course of the decade spent researching and writ-
- 15. x | Acknowledgments cess.I sincerely appreciate the dedication of the many others at UNC Press who were involved in the editing and production process. Donna Gabaccia has been a mentor since we met at my first scholarly con- ference presentation in Madison, Wisconsin. She, Marlou Schrover, and others working on gender and migration have been wonderful colleagues, as have been scholars whom I interact with regularly at the Social Science History Conference and European Social Science History Conference, in- cluding Susie Sinke, Cybelle Fox, Jaime Aguila, Vibha Bhalla, and Enda Delaney. Daniel Kanstroom generously agreed to read my final chapter after we met at an Oxford conference, and Hiroshi Motomura also read the manuscript. Tom Archdeacon, Christopher Kauffman, and Suellen Hoy were also important supporters early on in my career, and I have learned much from each. Landon Storrs, Tyler Priest, Tim Longman, and Regan Rhea have been close friends since graduate school and have supported me in innumerable ways. Landon also shared her expertise on twentieth- century political activism and gave me helpful feedback on chapter 6. I am deeply appreciative of the archivists and librarians who supported my research at many institutions. Marian Smith, historian at the INS and now USCIS, and Suzanne Harris, of the National Archives, were instru- mental in helping me start my archival research and navigate through the sources there. Janet Spikes, Dagne Gizaw, and Michelle Kamalich at the Wilson Center library kept pace with my volume of requests. Daniel Neces, Joel Wurl, now at NEH, and others at the IMHC in Minnesota, Gunnar Berg and the staff of the YIVO archives, and Anthony Touissant and the staff of the Schomberg Center Archives were all extremely help- ful. Tim Meagher convinced me to use the archival collection at Catholic University, and I found rich sources materials there. My Pennsylvania friends, especially Rebecca Kingston, Sara King, and Snezana and Kata Litvinovic, and those at George Mason Univer- sity supported me as I researched and wrote this book, including Eliza- beth Bernard, Cathy McCormick, Maria Eugenia Verdaguer, Dolores Gomez-Moran, Jeannie Brown Leonard, Laurie Fathe, Marcelle Heer- schap, Debra Bergoffen, Karen Misencik, Kathy Alligood, and Zofia Burr. Andrew Brenneman and Scott Hensley have remained dear friends since adolescence. My family, Maria Shea Moloney, Brona Moloney and David, Kathleen, Kiera, and Quinn Moloney, Maura Moloney and Eamonn Shea, as well as the entire Shea family, a four-continent Irish diaspora, along with our close family friends, deserve my profound gratitude as well.
- 16. Verso Running Foot| 1 NATIONAL INSECURITIES
- 17. This page intentionallyleft blank
- 18. civic life. Determiningwho should be allowed into the United States, the equity of immigration quotas, the assignment of refugee status, and the criteria for immigrant deportation are among the issues receiving height- ened public attention. Since September 11, 2001, immigration concerns have intensified, leading to renewed debates about the relationship be- tween immigration policy, national origins, civil liberties, and national security. Detention, deportation, and citizenship rights have been the subject of several highly publicized court cases during the past several years; beginning with the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling, which determined that aliens or other detainees cannot be held indefinitely and must be ac- corded due process rights, several Supreme Court and appeals court deci- sions have determined that the Bush administration’s indefinite detention of, and denial of legal rights to, noncitizens in Guantánamo and elsewhere have been unconstitutional. In one of its first actions, the Obama administration announced that the detention center at Guantánamo Bay would close. But that decision resulted in sharp resistance soon after it was publicized. Immigration reform efforts have also stalled, in large part because of the increasing contentiousness of rhetoric around immigration and religious plural- ism (including the proposed Cordoba Cultural Center in New York City, erroneously referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque, and the threatened Koran burning in Florida), fueled by draconian local and state legislation in Arizona and elsewhere and the rise of the Tea Party movement. In the past few years, tensions between federal agencies such as Immi- gration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local authorities have in- tensified throughout the United States in regions such as Arizona, where there has long been a substantial immigration population, and in Prince William County, Virginia, where there has not. Competing and often clashing laws and policies have been enacted in many locations to discour- age immigrants from living and working in those communities and from availing themselves of local services. Since the 1980s, state and local au- thorities have become increasingly unwilling to cede immigration control to federal authorities.These new state, county, and local laws have created innumerable problems that were not anticipated by the local and county INTRODUCTION U.S. immigration laws and policies are hotly debated issues in
- 19. 2 | Introduction boardsand state legislators voting to support them. They include clash- ing and overlapping jurisdictions, labor shortages in regions adopting the new policies, a significant escalation in enforcement and court costs, and sharply rising costs incurred by detaining immigrants in local jails and prisons. Such policies expand the potential for racial profiling and other civil liberties–related legal challenges and liabilities and discourage tar- geted ethnic groups from relocating or establishing businesses in those areas, regardless of their citizenship status. In 2008 ICE and local officials launched a raid on an Annapolis, Mary- land, painting company that employed a large number of Latino workers. They arrested forty-five workers and held several for deportation. An- napolis Chamber of Commerce director Bob Burton objected to the raid. He suggested that racial profiling was a concern and that it would have a “chilling effect” on the city’s business climate. That business interests would object to immigration restriction efforts is not new. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, businesses and corporate inter- ests generally opposed restrictive legislation because inexpensive labor fueled economic growth. Labor unions, including the American Federa- tion of Labor (AFL), were among the major proponents of immigration restriction, beginning with the ban on alien contract labor.1 But in recent decades the Republican Party, whose base depends on business owners, has generally supported tough immigration measures. The association between business interests and immigration restriction measures arose from issues related to the Republican Party’s increasingly effective use of a “law and order” platform beginning in the early 1980s, rather than from economic interests. The effectiveness of such an empha- sis, in turn, depended on racial and urban stereotypes, whether African American or Hispanic. Labor unions, in contrast, now depend on service sectoremployees to expand its dwindling membership base in thewake of the loss of highly unionized manufacturing jobs. Now that many of those service-sector jobs are held by immigrants, unions no longer lobby for stricter immigration control measures.2 Immigrant deportation raids on businesses by ICE affect not only those workers presumed to be in the United States illegally but also their spouses and children, who are sometimes citizens and are often depen- dent on the immigrant’s income. Jakalyn Munoz, a U.S. citizen, born in Washington, D.C., whose spouse was arrested in the 2008 Annapolis raid, stated: “This is supposed to be mycountry, but it doesn’t feel like that. Not
- 20. Introduction | 3 whenthey take your family away and they destroy the lives of your kids.” The issue of preventing the separation of families, especially in house- holds with mixed citizenship status, has been a recurring theme in depor- tation debates since the late nineteenth century, even in the cases of many political radicals.3 By 2006 the response of immigrants to this punitive political climate had also changed. They were no longer hesitant to participate in public protests as they once had been, they were better organized, and they held well-attended rallies and demonstrations in Washington, Los Angeles, New York, and several other cities across the country. More than a million immigrants are estimated to have participated in these rallies. In those protests, immigrants employed the rhetoric of the modern American civil rights movement by invoking citizenship and human rights, specifically focusing on harsh immigration legislation that was under consideration by Congress that spring.The protests were one of several factors that pre- vented the passage of major immigration legislation that year. Another was the political mobilization of Hispanic voters and the fact that, while historically they have tended to support Democrats, in the 2004 presiden- tial election, they voted in substantial numbers for George W. Bush. Although some Hispanic voters favor stricter immigration enforce- ment laws and policies, politicians do not wish to alienate this increasingly important voter bloc by supporting immigration laws that are viewed as unduly harsh by many in that community. Moreover, immigrants with permanent residence and third or fourth generation American citizens of Latin descent are concerned that should these laws be enacted they too will face a hostile environment because of their racial identities. That change reflects, to a large extent, the greater political incorporation of Hispanics in the United States, as organizations including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), established in the early- to mid-twentieth century, successfully mobilized Hispanics. The Intersection of Race and Gender Immigrant rights in the United States constitute a major element of a long historical debate over what constitutional and other protections are af- forded to noncitizens, especially when the process of deportation or re- moval is defined as an administrative, not criminal, process, and thus offers insufficient enumerated protections for those facing hearings and pos- sible expulsion. Yet, although governments around the world could and
- 21. 4 | Introduction didintervene in cases that pertained to their citizens living in the United States, they were largely unable to monitor closely or extend resources to those outside their own borders in any systematic or sustained way. This book is a broad historical analysis of United States immigration exclusion and deportation policy. It demonstrates the historical origins of many immigration policy issues in the United States today. I argue that de- portation policy has served as a social filter, by defining eligibility for citi- zenship in the United States and fundamentally shaping the subsequent composition of the American population. I use an intersectional approach to examine how race, gender, religion, and class interacted with one an- other in the creation and implementation of immigration policy. Racial and gender ideologies and practices converged in ways that compounded the effects of each, although that process was uneven, differed by context, and changed over time. Historically, race and gender have had the most significant impact on the creation of immigration policyand its outcomes; but those factors have always been intertwined with larger social con- cerns about foreign policy and national security, the economy, scientific and medical issues, morality, and attitudes about class, religion, and citi- zenship.4 Race was used explicitly to define eligibility for admission and citizen- ship in 1790, when eligibility for naturalization or obtaining U.S. citizen- ship was denied to nonwhite immigrants. The 1875 Page Law and the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act further constricted the ability of nonwhite immi- grants to settle in the United States. I argue that, even when race was not an explicit basis of enforcement, immigrants were subject to regulation by racially based proxy methods, including the differential regulation of disease, economic status, and religious beliefs by the creation of new categories and definitions and by unstated assumptions. The last-named category, through a constitutionally protected one, was regulated at the borders when immigrants held beliefs outside mainstream Christian tra- ditions.Those immigrants tended to be nonwhite or otherwise associated with non-European religious traditions. Racewas not a stable concept in immigration policy, in part because the definitions of groups and their rights changed according to chronological period, legal definitions that varied by state, federal policies, changes in citizenship eligibility, and local contexts. The eugenics-based ideologies that rose alongside American territorial expansion influenced immigra- tion typologies that subsided in the post–World War II era. But in the past few decades, there has been a resurgence of racially based ideologies,
- 22. Introduction | 5 oftenveiled in racially neutral rhetoric, whether in anti-immigrant invec- tives against irregular (or undocumented) immigrants, who are predomi- nantly nonwhite, or virulent anti-Muslim sentiment. Gender ideologies often intersected with race to render nonwhite women particularly vulnerable to exclusion and deportation. The treat- ment of nonmarital sexual relations at the border was clearly regulated differentiallyon the basis of race. For much of the twentieth century, inap- propriate sexual behavior, or immorality, was defined largely as female— male clients, unmarried fathers, or “procurers” were far less likely to be regulated at the borders than were their female partners. Mexican men proved an exception: they were more likely than white men to be pun- ished by authorities for their involvement in prostitution. The relation- ship of gender to race was dynamic over time. For example, the “likely to become a public charge” (LPC) provision was a feminized one that af- fected women of many races and nationalities before the 1930s. After that, federal officials employed it as a strategy to deport Mexican laborers, who were predominately male. In other immigration circumstances, however, such as the separation of young children from their unmarried mothers, race or nationality did not seem to play a decisive factor. In contrast, gen- der was less critical than race in the differential regulation of illness and in the creation of diagnoses with the purpose of excluding and deporting immigrants on medical grounds. Race and gender ideologies, however, both played major roles in how religion was regulated at the borders. Laborand economic exigencies often intersected with racial definitions in creating immigration policy. For example, Mexicans were exempt from numerical restrictions based on race and national origins and initially de- fined as white in the federal census. Mexicans became more vital to the agricultural economy of the West once Chinese and Japanese laborers were excluded in 1882 and 1907 respectively. Even in the early twentieth century, far fewer Mexicans were recorded in immigration statistics than other major immigrant groups. When the agricultural economy became depressed beginning in the 1920s, however, Mexican immigrants became increasingly vulnerable. In 1930 they were redefined as nonwhite in the federal census. As Kelly Lytle Hernández argues in her recent history of the U.S. Border Patrol, the agency, established in 1924, deepened inequities in the treatment of Mexican immigrants by providing employers with a new mechanism to control their workers. Filipinos also became more vulnerable during this Great Depression. Because of their status as a U.S. colony (or protector-
- 23. 6 | Introduction ate),Filipinos had been exempt from Asian exclusion laws. But in 1934, the Tydings-McGuffie Act provided for Philippine independence, while simultaneously severely reducing the number of annual immigrants per- mitted from the country.5 Although early federal immigration statistics based on race and nation- ality are difficult to analyze closely because of continually shifting defini- tions of race, nationality, and other categories, and although aggregate exclusion or deportation numbers remain small, some trends do emerge that confirm racial bias. From 1895 to 1904, immigrants who were from Asia, the Middle East, Mexico, and Italy had higher rates of exclusion than those from Northern Europe. Japanese had a 3 percent rate; Syrian and Turkish immigrants had just below a 4 percent exclusion rate in this period; Mexicans, 2 percent; and Italians, 1.4 percent, compared to En- glish and Welch at 0.87 percent and Scandinavians at a scant 0.14 percent. Deportation rates remained lower than exclusion, at that point, and oc- curred only within a year of arrival.6 Perhaps most striking in this early-era data is the low number of Mexi- cans recorded in immigration statistics, relative to their large numerical presence as agricultural workers in the Southwest and elsewhere. In that period, fewer than 3,000 Mexicans were recorded as entering the United States at border stations, as compared to 1.1 million Italians, nearly 78,000 Japanese, and 43,000 Syrians and Turkish immigrants. This suggests that immigration and other federal officials viewed them as migrants rather than immigrants—the way they viewed people arriving by sea—and understood that they were not moving across borders primarily through immigration stations. The reclassification of Mexicans into immigrants would begin to shift only in the years leading to the creation of the U.S. Border Patrol in 1924 and remained contingent on economic needs, since Mexicans were not subject to the numerical quotas imposed by the 1920s national-origins legislation.7 Race was less instrumental in those deportations based on political and social ideologies. In the Red Scare following World War I, most of those targeted for deportation were Russian and Eastern and Southern European men who were legally defined as white. That trend reflected the federal authorities’ assumptions that those who were neither male nor white were not major political actors. Indeed, given that women had just achieved suffrage and many African Americans and others remained disenfranchised, that attitude reflected reality in the strictest sense of political activity. Women and nonwhites continued to be marginalized
- 24. Introduction | 7 inradical and other nontraditional social movements. But as the Emma Goldman, Marcus Garvey, and Claudia Jones cases demonstrate, activists who were nonwhite and/or female who challenged prevailing economic and political ideologies in highly public ways were sometimes targeted for deportation. In those three cases, gender ideologies also played an im- portant role. For example, federal authorities attempted to use the Mann Act against Garvey, Goldman’s deportation appeal hinged on her argu- ment that she derived U.S. citizenship through male family members, and Jones’s vulnerability arose in part because of her status as a black woman in the white- and male-dominated Communist Party. My project places several of these issues in transnational perspective by examining immigrant exclusion and deportation policy in the United States from the late nineteenth century until the World War II era, com- paring trends among immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It focuses on the consequences of an 1882 im- migration law, first revised in 1891, that excluded or deported immigrants deemed “likely to become public charges, persons suffering from a loath- some or contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage has been paid for with the money of another.”8 This study integrates social history with public policy history. It em- phasizes the perspectives of immigrants and their advocates as they ex- perienced immigration policy and defended their rights as noncitizens. The richly detailed case files woven into this narrative vividly illustrate the impact that particular decisions had on immigrants’ lives. I situate deportation policies in the context of broader Progressive Era and New Deal trends, including economic developments, international relations, gender relations and ideologies, political rights, racial attitudes, and reli- gious life. Early debates over immigrant rights contributed to the modern understanding of universal human rights that emerged following World War II. I illustrate how larger social and political forces were also influen- tial—those include foreign policyconcerns, family reunification consider- ations, the efforts and reaction of immigrant advocacy organizations, and public opinion.9 As a social historian of the United States, I emphasize the role of its gov- ernment agencies, immigrant advocates, and experiences of immigrants themselves. The transnational scope of this topic has led me to draw on a wider disciplinary framework by integrating scholarship of political
- 25. 8 | Introduction scientists,anthropologists, sociologists, legal scholars, social activists, and historians of Europe, Canada, and Australia. Deportation, Exclusion, and Repatriation Deportation is the state-mandated process by which noncitizen immi- grants are expelled from a nation and returned to their countries of origin after residing in the state, on the basis of the administrative determina- tion that they have violated immigration policy or committed a crime. In 1892 just 2,800 people faced deportation from the United States; by 2008 that figure exceeded 358,000. But those statistics mask an array of closely linked administrative processes of expelling immigrants. More common was exclusion, the process by which immigration officials determine that immigrants should not be formallyadmitted to the United States upon ar- rival at the border because they are perceived as failing to meet the stan- dards of admission set forth by immigration laws and policies. These im- migrants were refused entry upon arrival or shortly thereafter. Until the mechanisms to expel those residing in the United States were in force, ex- clusion rates exceeded those of deportation. The distinction between deportation and exclusion is not always clear in law or in implementation. Exclusion, as detailed in chapter 7, has not been a wholly separate process from deportation and makes the fine dis- tinction among those allowed to enter the country and those turned away at the border or port of entry. At times, a clear distinction is made be- tween those deported after being admitted into U.S. territory and those immigrants who were never permitted entry. But the 1953 Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei case illustrates that the differencewas sometimes not clear-cut.Countless other immigrants “voluntarily repatriated” under threat of deportation, because they did not wish to endure detention or were not aware that they could appeal their decision. But the complex question of consent blurs the distinction between voluntary return under such circumstances and mandated deportation. Early in the federal regulation, “debarment,” the term used for exclu- sion, was employed more often than removal or deportation. In 1906, for example, 12,432 persons were debarred upon landing or attempting to cross a land border, whereas fewer than 700 were deported after residing in the United States for at least a year. Two decades later, the number of debarred aliens, 20,550, still exceeded deportations, 10,904, although by a smaller margin. The mechanisms that allowed for deportation—a much more labor-intensive and administratively complex process than exclu-
- 26. Introduction | 9 sionat borders and ports—had been put into place. Deportation some- times follows a criminal conviction in the United States but often occurs independently. In such cases, coordination with local and federal agencies is required.10 A third closely intertwined process is “voluntary return,” in response to apprehension and the threat of deportation or removal.That latter action has since 1954 often exceeded one million immigrants annually and far exceeds the number forcibly deported or removed. In part, this trend oc- curred because of the lack of administrative capability to hear cases, de- tain immigrants, and provide for appeals.11 Some immigrants understand that if formally deported, they are unlikely to ever be admitted to the United States. They also recognize the often inhumane conditions of a lengthy detention in immigration centers, federal prisons, or local and county jails, where there have been instances in which inmates awaiting the outcome of theircases have died because of lack of medical care. Since 1996, expedited removal procedures have allowed U.S. immigration au- thorities to expel immigrants without any administrative hearing. That process acknowledges that there was in fact a legal and conceptual dis- tinction between exclusion and deportation, even though that distinction had been formally erased.12 Over time, the mechanism for exclusion and deportation expanded from an ad hoc, piecemeal process at the state level, rooted in European poor laws, to a national border-focused approach, to a sustained effort to regulate and police the activities of noncitizens sometimes for decades after their arrival. This occurred in several ways: the extension of grounds and length of subjectivity to deportation laws from activities occurring before arrival to activities occurring several years after settlement; an in- creased level of collaboration among immigration officials with local law enforcement and social service, hospitals, and other publicly funded agen- cies; and the rise of the FBI and the expansion of its powers to regulate immigration-related matters. My argument about the significant role of deportation in U.S. society is rights based rather than based on its numerical significance. In fact, relative to those admitted in a given year and the immigrant population as a whole, the aggregate numbers in appendix B suggest that total de- portation rates are low. Throughout the twentieth century, deportations averaged just 1 to 3 percent of the total immigrant population admitted to the United States in a given year. Though this seems a relatively small figure, that percentage fluctuated and had a greater impact on some com-
- 27. 10 | Introduction munitiesin some periods. In a few cases, immigration laws, such as the Chinese exclusion laws, were effective in deterring most of the banned groups from attempting to enter the United States. The cost of intercon- tinental transportation posed a barrier to those who understood that the likelihood of admission was very low, though some did attempt to cross the borders from Canada and Mexico. Deportation requires significant resources, especially personnel, to monitor immigrants, review documentation, detain and patrol, and co- ordinate with federal and local agencies as well as hospitals and charities. These resources were not always available to the immigration agency.The systemization of visa, passport, and communication channels remained rudimentary before the 1920s, a decade when the U.S. Department of State established a visa system in the ports of embarkation and established professional consular officers. Steamship and railroad travel and regula- tion, along with federal policies pertaining to landholding and property rights, had significant implications for immigration, including the cost and efficiency of immigration routes, and the geographic distribution of potential immigrants and landed immigrants.13 By providing a mechanism to exert leverage over noncitizens who re- sided in the United States, the threat of deportation contributed to the marginalization of immigrants and their stigmatization during periods of national crises. That threat was highly effective in silencing immigrants in the political sphere, in theworkplace, and in the community. It further led to retribution efforts by spurned lovers, resentful neighbors, and overzeal- ous public officials. As Reuben Oppenheimer, an attorney and immigrant rights advocate, concluded in the 1930s, immigrants from nations with nondemocratic governments were intimidated by the threat or the pro- cess of indefinite detention, deportation, and the impact of their return to their country of origin. Deportation has been characterized by its unique administrative na- ture, its retroactivity, and a lack of proportionality between an offense and its outcome. Those features distinguish it from many of the constitu- tional protections afforded to those facing criminal proceedings, such as the statute of limitations imposed on most crimes adjudicated in the U.S. court system. Immigrants who violated laws between their admission to the United States and obtaining U.S. citizenship had the potential to be deported on many grounds for which there was no statute of limitations. Furthermore, the retroactive nature of many deportation-related policies contributed to a climate where immigrants remained vulnerable until
- 28. Introduction | 11 theyobtained citizenship.This had a significant effect on early twentieth- century American society, with a foreign-born population of about 10 per- cent, a ratio that once again characterizes the U.S. population. Although the deterrent effect of deportations cannot be accurately measured historically, newspaper accounts, personal experiences of re- turned immigrants, and word of mouth in originating communities cer- tainly played a role in discouraging affected groups of immigrants from seeking to settle in the United States, in much the sameway that economic downturns and other events depressed rates of immigration, albeit on a much greater scale. Deportation has recently been the subject of renewed scholarly inter- est, alongside other types of “forced migration,” particularly modern slavery, human trafficking, impressment into militias and armies, and refu- gee movements that result from war and major ethnic conflicts, political oppression, denial of human rights, economic depression, and natural dis- asters. That research correlates with the increasing rates of deportation or expulsion of immigrants in the United States, Canada, Australia, Euro- pean Union member states, and other countries in recent years. Refugee policies and immigration regulation are distinct, but those processes have increasinglyconverged over the past two decades. A liberal refugee policy following World War II served as tacit acknowledgment that democratic nations had not acted generously enough in protecting Jews and others fleeing the Holocaust. Later it reflected an ideological Cold War stance by favoring refugees opposed to communism and social- ism. Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, however, many liberal democ- racies have greatly limited the number of refugees they admit each year, and public attitudes toward refugees have become far less sympathetic. Those denied asylum typically risk politically based or other forms of per- secution upon their return to their originating communities. Since the re- cent global financial crisis, these trends have rapidly accelerated.14 Because immigration laws and policies vary by country, my analysis of deportation is specific to the United States and limited to the expulsion of noncitizens. Forexample, Maria-Teresa Gil-Bazo has recentlydocumented that French citizens have been deported from their own country. In the United States, this is not, in the strictest sense, a legal possibility. Instead, U.S. citizens, whether born or naturalized into that status, must be denatu- ralized before being removed or expelled from the nation, a process that remains relatively rare.There are some significant exceptions to the notion that U.S. citizens cannot be deported. Minor U.S. citizen children of de-
- 29. 12 | Introduction portednon-U.S. citizens often have no choice but to accompany their par- ent or parents. U.S. citizens without documentation of their status were detained or deported during immigration raids, such as those of the first Red Scare and the Doak Raids during the Hoover administration.15 The definition of deportation that refers to the systematic expulsion of a state’s own citizens is a separate process from what I address in this study. For example, the expulsion that was associated with the genocide of Jewish citizens from Germanyand its occupied territories duringWorld War II constitutes another meaning of deportation; a state’s expulsion of citizen ethnoreligious minority groups within its borders in the later twentieth century is yet another dimension of deportation. The Emergence of a Federal Deportation Process Deportation and related forms of immigration control arose as an impor- tant function of the modern, industrial state. Control over the composi- tion of a nation’s citizenry, its ideologies, and the shape of the industrial workforce increasingly became a transnational project, not simply one that occurred within national borders. Under British rule, American colo- nies within the broader Atlantic world experienced the close regulation of goods, people, and commerce. With the rapid rise of industrial growth and ease of transportation, and continental expansion, global migration needed to be regulated more systematically than it had since American independence. A comprehensive American immigration policy began to emerge from 1875 to 1882, with the passage of three pieces of legislation— the 1875 Page Law, followed by the Immigration Act and Chinese Exclu- sion Act in 1882. Between 1882 and the immigration restriction laws of the 1920s that greatly restricted the flow of European immigration to the United States, a series of additional federal laws were passed and policy decisions implemented that restricted the movement of immigrants based largely on concerns over race and ethnicity, poverty, public health, politi- cal beliefs, and morality. Although efforts began in the early national period, sufficient regula- tory mechanisms and federal resources did not materialize until the end of the nineteenth century with the emergence of a modern industrial state and an enlarged role for the federal government. Moreover, in large part because of the integral role of immigrants in building a modern infra- structure and an industrial economy in the United States, there were in- sufficient organized efforts to establish restrictive immigration laws be-
- 30. Introduction | 13 fore1875, with the major exception of Denis Kearney’s Workingman’s Party and the Know-Nothing Movement.16 The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War, expanded federal citizenship and voting rights to U.S. citizens regardless of race. But Jim Crow laws at the state level, along with other enforcement mechanisms, prevented many non- white citizens from exercising or appealing for their rights. Lynching and other forms of racial violence were widespread in the century following the Civil War. The federal government did not intervene to address the most egregious of those civil rights violations until the modern civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For nonwhite immigrants, however, in- eligibility for citizenship based on race persisted well into the second half of the twentieth century.17 The post–Civil War period also led to a major expansion in the power of the federal government and its regulatory power. Congress passed five major immigration laws from 1882 and 1921 that provided grounds for ex- cluding immigrants upon arrival or for their deportation on the basis of poverty, mental and physical health, morality, or political beliefs. Criti- cally, these laws ultimately shifted from assessing those conditions upon entry to expanding deportation criteria to include post-entry conduct. They included the Immigration Act of August 3, 1882 (22 Statutes-at- Large 214), which restricted immigration of “persons likely to become a public charge”; the Immigration Act of March 3, 1891 (22 Statutes-at- Large 1084), which added to the list of inadmissible immigrants those “persons suffering from certain contagious disease, felons, persons con- victed of other crimes or misdemeanors, polygamists, aliens assisted by others by payment of passage, and forbade the encouragement of immi- gration by means of advertisement”; the Immigration Act of March 3, 1903 (32 Statutes-at-Large 1213), which excluded aliens who were anarchists or communists and extended the deportation period to three years after ar- rival and two to those deported for being likely to become a public charge if those conditions existed before their arrival; the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907 (34 Statutes-at-Large 898), which added to the list of in- admissible classes “imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, persons with physi- cal or mental defects which may affect their ability to earn a living, per- sons afflicted with tuberculosis, children unaccompanied by their parents, persons who admitted the commission of a crime involving moral turpi- tude, and women coming to the United States for immoral purposes”; and
- 31. 14 | Introduction theImmigration Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Statutes-at-Large 874), which stated that some causes of deportations were to be exempt from statutes of limitation.18 This period, especially the early twentieth century, has not received sufficient attention by historians examining immigration policy, largely because the series of immigration laws enacted in this era have been over- shadowed by those passed in 1882 and the 1920s. Yet, the period from 1882–1921 was pivotal in the emergence of an increasingly restrictive, national-origins-based U.S. immigration policy.The mechanisms of immi- gration regulation were established, and debates over which newcomers should be allowed to live in the United States, and which of those were eligible forcitizenship, becamewidespread.The rationale for immigration control was also developed in this era, whether that control was based on racial identity, gender and familial roles and relationships, workforce im- peratives, public health, religious views and practices, political and social beliefs, or activism.19 In this era the 1911 Dillingham Commission Report was published under the auspices of the U.S. Senate. Its highly biased classifications of various immigrant groups laid the foundation for a federal immigration policy based on legislation enacted in 1921 and 1924 establishing a national quota system that sharply reduced the numbers of Southern and Eastern European and Russian immigrants.20 The report drew extensively from the increasingly popular eugenics theories of Madison Grant, William Z. Ripley, and other American and European theorists. Immigrant advocates, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), represented immi- grants who were in danger of being excluded upon arrival or deported. They also corresponded with the Bureau of Immigration (the precursor to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now renamed the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services) to address issues of bias. A helpful way to understand the broad contours of American immigra- tion policy and priorities from the Progressive Era onward is to examine the historical evolution of the name of the agencycharged with regulating immigration and naturalization and its continually shifting administrative jurisdiction. While some of those decisions were rooted in logistical and budgetary considerations, those changes also demonstrate the increas- ingly contested nature of immigration in the United States and the fed- eral government’s role in its regulation. Consistent throughout the past century has been the central role of race and ethnicity (or national iden- tity) in shaping immigration and naturalization policy, but otherconcerns
- 32. Introduction | 15 cameto the fore in response to shifting social and international contexts. During its first decade, for example, the focus of federal immigration policy was heavily focused on economic issues.The Office of Immigration was first established as an agency within the Treasury Department. One of the agency’s major initiatives was to bar alien contract laborers under the 1885 Foran Act. Immigrant workers were widely viewed as undercut- ting American wages, especially as jobs became increasingly mechanized in this era. A second restriction barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States.Yet manyemployers voiced theiropposition to such restric- tive measures in order to maintain cheap labor pools.21 This systematic and comprehensive effort also marked the movement of the United States toward a modern state and a developed economy. For the first time, the federal government appropriated resources to de- termine more systematically who would constitute its population in the future by allocating funds to regulate its borders. Throughout the nine- teenth century, a largely immigrant population had laid a complex rail transportation network and increased production in key leading sectors such as textiles and clothing, coal, metals mining, and steel. Only after much of that industrial infrastructure was built by low-wage workers in highly hazardous conditions were most Chinese immigrants denied entry, and efforts to limit Southern and Eastern European immi- grants followed. Outside the South, where African Americans had been historically responsible for most agricultural production, immigrants supplemented output. In fact, Mexican agricultural workers were largely exempt from close immigration control until 1930, because of their criti- cal role in the rapidly developing agricultural and mining sectors of the Southwest and California.22 Until the Depression, Mexican immigrants were viewed primarily as contingent, nonpermanent agricultural mi- grants, and their racial identities were still in flux. In 1885 the agency became known as the Bureau of Immigration, and in 1903 it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Commerce. Between 1897 and 1902, former Knights of Labor grand mas- ter workmanTerenceV. Powderly headed the agency. Powderly’s appoint- ment symbolized the agency’s early concern with immigrants in their role as laborers and their potential to compete with American-born workers and to depress wage scales. By 1906 its role had expanded to encompass the naturalization function, and the agency became known as the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.That administrative shift suggested an increasingly closer conceptual and functional link between the determi-
- 33. 16 | Introduction nationof who should be admitted into the United States and who should be deemed eligible for citizenship. By 1913 the functions were split into the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization, separate agencies within the newly created De- partment of Labor. In 1933 the agency became known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and it moved in 1940 from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice. Its assignment as an agency within the Department of Justice until 2003 suggests the increasing concern with preventing illegal immigration by the mid-twentieth century that has ex- tended to the recent past. It also reflects the fact that the Bureau of Infor- mation (later the FBI) under the influence of J. Edgar Hoover, who even- tually headed the agency, claimed a major stake in regulating immigration to deport thosewhom theydeemed subversive political threats, beginning in theWorld War I era and its immediate aftermath, with the Palmer Raids and first Red Scare. Finally, the agency has been known since 2003 as the Bureau of Citizen- ship and Immigration Services and was established under the newly cre- ated Department of Homeland Security, in response to the events of 9/11. The agency regulating immigration is now charged with preventing ter- rorism in the United States, and its enforcement powers have expanded enormously as a result of the passage of the Patriot Act, as well as earlier enforcement efforts designed to strengthen the federal government’s power and ability to deport noncitizens.23 The process formerly known as deportation has been reclassified as “removal.” As chapter 7 details, the process remains ambiguous—though not a criminal procedure, many of the features remain nearly identical, such as indefinite detention in jails and other governmental facilities, the issuing of warrants, limited contact with relatives, and appeals. The process of expedited removal allows the federal government to forgo even the limited legal protections afforded to immigrant noncitizens. An understanding of the historical development of deportation is vital to current immigration reform initiatives, political and community in- corporation issues, and citizenship and human rights. This book demon- strates that several current immigration issues originate from much earlier debates over federal immigration policy. Historiographical Context This study contributes to the trend of viewing U.S. history from a transna- tional or global perspective. Daniel T. Rodgers and others have viewed re-
- 34. Introduction | 17 formmovements as products of social, political, and economic influences across national borders. Historians are also interested in analyzing how immigration and other transnational processes influenced the rise of the modern nation-state. Analyzing immigration within the framework of the process of British decolonization and the often simultaneous process of U.S. neo-imperial growth beginning in the post–Civil War era is also help- ful. My work contributes both to recent scholarship on U.S. social history, especially immigration and ethnic history, and to a broader discussion of transnational migration and globalization by historians, sociologists, and political scientists.24 Two important books on U.S. immigration policy history were pub- lished in the 1950s: John Higham’s classic Strangers in the Land and Robert Divine’s American Immigration Policy, 1924–1952. Each detailed the major catalysts for immigration laws, highlighted nativism, and focused on eu- genicist ideologies in the early twentieth century.25 That state-focused ap- proach to immigration issues was soon followed by the immense popu- larity of social history. For several decades immigration and other social historians focused on community studies, the preindustrial and industrial workplace, and social mobility studies, influenced by Herbert Gutmann and other pioneers of the new social history. Historians also embraced anthropological and sociological approaches and quantitative method- ologies. Classic examples include Virginia Yans-McLaughlin’s Family and Community: Italian Immigrants in Buffalo, 1880–1930. Immigration histo- rians also engaged in debates about the nature and process of accultura- tion, including the uprooted versus transplanted debates that stemmed from Oscar Handlin’s 1950 book The Uprooted. Rudolph Vecoli’s classic article “Contadini in Chicago” initiated this debate, and John Bodnar in The Transplanted continued it. Absent in much of that early social history was an analysis of the role of the state in regulating immigration and shap- ing immigration trends, political incorporation, work patterns, and gen- der relations.26 By the 1990s, however, a subsequent generation returned to the state as a major focus of analysis, a turn that political scientist Theda Skocpol characterizes as “bringing the state back in.” But there were significant differences from Higham and Divine in their approaches to immigration policy history. In large part, this was not a break from the preceding de- cades of historiography but a blending of a state-centered approach with a greater attentiveness to issues of culture, gender, race, and other factors. Perhaps most significantly, the use of archival sources has been far greater
- 35. 18 | Introduction thanwas apparent in studies by Higham or Divine. Recently, Mae Ngai, Aristide Zolberg, Desmond King, and others have published excellent studies on U.S. immigration policy. Each of those studies has addressed the importance of policies and legislation in the interwar period, which had until recently received less scholarly attention than other periods.27 A similar trend has occurred among scholars studying immigration in Europe, Australia, and Canada. Since the 1990s many scholars have re- turned to a more state-inclusive approach to immigration history, includ- ing Rita Chin, Marlou Schrover, Philippe Rygiel, and Clifford Rosenberg. Most recently, monographs such as Adam McKeown’s Melancholy Order and articles by Erika Lee and Kornel Chang have begun to address immi- gration policies across national boundaries, viewing immigration policies with a multistate, comparative lens, an effort that historians have previ- ously ceded to political scientists.28 A related trend in recent immigration and social history, in another re- turn to John Higham’s approach in Strangers in the Land, has been to exam- ine how racial and ethnic taxonomies that emerged from the Progressive Era writings of Charles Davenport, William Z. Ripley, and others ulti- mately shaped immigration policy.The popularity of eugenics-based clas- sifications, evident in the 1911 Dillingham Report, commissioned by the U.S. Senate, led to the passage of legislation in 1921 and 1924 that sharply curtailed European immigration. But that classification earlier led to re- strictive policies, including those used to reduce Jewish immigration from Russia and Eastern Europe. Alexandra M. Stern is among the historians who have returned to Higham’s question of how eugenics ideologies in- fluenced immigration policy.29 Immigrant advocates, including those from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, argued that the classification of “poor physique” was unfairly used to exclude or deport Jewish immigrants. INS records reveal that there were significant disagreements among immigration officials in the 1910s about how “poor physique” was defined and diagnosed as well as the influence of eugenics on the creation of immigration policy. Such racial taxonomies contributed to the implementation of immigration policy, in- cluding deportation policies, during the Progressive Era.30 Despite a renewed focus on the history of U.S. immigration policy over the past decade, especially on the impact of the Chinese Exclusion Act, there has been relatively little focus specifically on the history of U.S. de- portation policy since Jane Clark Perry’s study was published in 1931. Daniel Kanstroom’s recent book is an exception. His impressive study is
- 36. Introduction | 19 primarilya legal history of deportation. In contrast, my social history ap- proach incorporates significant case files from the National Archives, em- phasizes the role of immigrant advocate groups, and roots deportation issues firmly in the historical context of larger social trends, such as Pro- gressive Era reform movements, eugenics ideology, the Red Scare, and the New Deal. Mae Ngai’s book on how the concept of illegal immigration emerged as a significant category in the United States incorporates a dis- cussion of deportation policy, but she does not analyze gender to a signifi- cant degree.31 Kanstroom and Ngai provide excellent macrolevel analyses of fed- eral immigration policy, but such an approach tends to minimize agency among immigrants and their advocates. My study also emphasizes the lived experiences of immigrants who were affected by exclusion and de- portation—whether that was through separation from their infant chil- dren, indefinite detention, or, in particularly extreme cases, death. By highlighting the interplay between immigrants, immigration officials on the ground and in Washington, the Department of State, international consulates in the United States, immigrant communities, immigrant advocates, the press, members of the public, politicians, and other stake- holders, my study places deportation within a larger transnational frame- work of debates over the role of immigrants and citizenship and empha- sizes that immigrants and their advocates contributed significantly to those debates. Martha Gardner and Eithne Luibhéad have each addressed the impact of U.S. immigration policy on females and have effectively embedded race into their analysis. Martha Gardner’s analysis of the impact of gendered assumptions in the enforcement of immigration law shares similarities with my first chapters—both of us draw from case records to focus on definitions of marriage, prostitution, and poverty and economics, though her work does not center on deportation specifically. Luibhéad discusses deportation in a larger framework of immigration policy, but much of her research focuses on the post–World War II period. She makes a par- ticularly vital contribution to gender and immigration policy through her analysis of how sexual orientation and heteronormative assumptions have influenced federal policy and its enforcement. That perspective is shared by Margot Canaday, who analyzes the heteronormative assump- tions underlying immigration laws and policies in The Straight State: Sexu- ality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America.32 In contrast to the work of Ngai, Kanstroom, Gardner, and Luibhéad,
- 37. 20 | Introduction mystudy emphasizes the impact of immigrant advocates, and situates both race and gender within the context of larger transnational histori- cal developments, including mobilization against white slavery, interna- tional investigations, and foreign policy issues. I also incorporate a state- building approach to deportation. In contrast to previous scholarship I discuss how immigration policy is shaped at multiple and often conflict- ing levels of government: local, state, federal, and international, as well as the competing interests and agendas of government agencies and federal branches. By focusing on deportation and exclusion policies in particular, my study reveals much about debates about who was fit for citizenship at the borders and following settlement and how those decisions were made at several levels—on the ground; among policy makers, the media, and im- migrant groups and organization; and in a wider international context. As a historian interested in the relationship between immigration, religion, and ethnicity, I emphasize the role of religion and religious organizations in immigration policy and deportation in ways that have not yet been sys- tematically addressed.33 Immigrant advocacy organizations, precursors to contemporary non- governmental organizations (NGOs), influenced the creation and imple- mentation of U.S. immigration policy in ways that have not been fully recognized. Groups such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC), and members of local ethnic and immigrant communities helped to shape the contours of im- migration policy, or the outcomes of individual deportation cases.Though a challenge to find sources depicting the deportation process from the perspective of immigrants themselves, they do exist, even when filtered through the lens of the U.S. government or immigrant assistance organi- zations. But that strategy worked best when advocates and immigrants hewed to a narrative of vulnerability, such as mothers separated from chil- dren or spouses, or orphaned refugee children. Radicals, non-European immigrants, and others were less likely to evoke sympathy. HIAS was particularly successful in appealing its clients’ deportation and exclusion decisions, because it had a group of dedicated attorneys working on their behalf, had strong relationships with congressional rep- resentatives, especially in New York, and ensured that immigration issues were well publicized in the Jewish community through local and national organizations and publications.The Catholic Church in the United States had several motivations to intervene on behalf of immigrants. Immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, and increasingly from Mexico, were a
- 38. Introduction | 21 majorsource of church membership in the United States and the basis of its future growth and success. Social welfare efforts, such as those estab- lished by NCWC, demonstrated the institutional maturity of the church, its ability to care for its own, and an alternative to Progressive Era Prot- estant and humanist charitable and reform efforts. Both HIAS and the NCWC were motivated to demonstrate publicly that they had achieved middle-class respectability by establishing such initiatives for their needy immigrant coreligionists. Both stressed the ethos of family unityas a rights principle, such as the NCWC’s use of the term “fireside relatives.” Historians of medicine have also published interesting research on im- migration policy based on public health issues and racialized assumptions underlying those restrictive efforts. For example, Amy Fairchild’s research addresses medical examinations and public health issues at Ellis Island and at other ports, but she does not situate those issues within a broader social history framework. She argues that relatively few immigrants were excluded or deported for medical illness and states that the LPC provi- sion was the commonly used category. The LPC provision is a critical but underanalyzed provision of immigration policy. It accounted for the ma- jority of deportations in this era and had a major impact during the Great Depression and during policy debates in the 1990s. A 1987 dissertation analyzed the clause, but that research focused extensively on the admin- istration of the policy and was never published. Fairchild relies on ag- gregate immigration statistics, which can be misleading without a close examination of the case files of those deported for LPC. In reading those records, it is evident that the LPC provision was often used in cases when immigrants were suspected of prostitution, criminality, or were otherwise undesirable, because it was easier to prove. This study uses a comparative framework that demonstrates that pluralistic nations began moving to increasingly restrictive policies in this era. Rather than focusing on a particular ethnic group or two, I have con- sciously chosen to incorporate a broad selection of groups from Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and Asia. Such a comparative ap- proach allows immigrant historians to understand how different groups experienced immigration regulation, and the differential impact of poli- cies by gender, region, religion, and national/ethnic origins. But such a comprehensive approach gives less attention to specific immigrant groups’ unique histories and motivations for immigration, as well as to commu- nity and institution-building approaches following arrival. Chinese immigration, however, is foundational to my analysis for sev-
- 39. 22 | Introduction eralreasons. First,Chinese immigrants were the first to be regulated at the federal level, through the 1875 Page Law and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. These laws influenced the development of subsequent policies that restricted, excluded, and deported immigrants from other regions of the world, such as those policing female sexuality. The mechanisms of immi- gration control, including the use of photographic identification, were first developed to police Chinese immigrants and later became widely implemented. Moreover, several Chinese exclusion-based cases became landmark Supreme Court decisions with lasting implications for immi- grant rights. These included U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., and Yick Wo v. Hopkins in the late nineteenth century.34 The ban on Chi- nese laborers also increased the importance of Mexican immigrants in the Southwest. Unlike Chinese laborers, Mexican immigrants were first viewed by manyas temporary migrants. Following the Exclusion Act,Chi- nese immigrants faced exclusion on medical grounds, especially for tra- choma and hookworm, which were diagnosed at much higher frequencies than for other groups.35 Whiteness Scholarship My understanding of the racialization of immigration policy has been in- formed by scholars of immigration history writing in the past two decades, and also by whiteness studies, an area of research that has intersected with immigration history in that period. David Roediger’s study on the social construction of race and economic competition between Irish and Afri- can American workers launched a widerdebate about permeable and con- textual racial definitions of Italian, Jewish, and Eastern European immi- grant workers by historians, including James Barrett and Matthew Frye Jacobson.Thomas Guglielmo takes issue with some of those earlier works, suggesting that Italian immigrants’ access to citizenship, their settlement outside of the segregated South, and legal rights insured that they were “white,” despite their often darker complexions, their Catholicism, and low skill levels relative to native-born white Protestants. Eric Arnesen and others have also questioned whether whiteness studies is a particularly new approach and have debated the theoretical framework of the field. Several issues arising from the debates about whiteness are helpful to my analysis. I agree that context was important in framing racial identi- ties, a point that scholars of whiteness often emphasize. Historians have discussed how class, education, language, and region of settlement all in- fluenced the treatment of nonwhites in any given era, as did how they
- 40. Introduction | 23 wereclassified in state and federal censuses, immigration statistics, and other official documents. Mexican Americans sometimes consciously chose to describe themselves as Spanish, thus “whitening” themselves by identifying as Europeans.36 Glaringly absent from most of these works, however, is a systematic analysis of how racial construction or identity was shaped by gender, espe- cially economic roles of men and women. Like the field of labor history that influenced these writers, many of these studies are situated in male- dominated or exclusively male workplaces or organizations. Indeed, Eric Arnesen’s robust critique of whiteness as a category of historical analy- sis does not cite the lack of attention to gender as a major weakness in the approach. Karen Brodkin, an anthropologist, offers one exception. In her book on Jewish immigrants she explains how decisions about married women’s labor force participation contributed to thewhitening of Ameri- can Jews. April Schultz has addressed how immigrant domestic servants can be viewed in the context of whiteness, and Gunther Peck has dis- cussed gender and whiteness in the context of prostitution. With some exceptions, then, most of the gender analysis within whiteness studies has emerged from literary theorists.37 Another issue that I find problematic about the historical literature on whiteness is the assumption that Europeans and others learned about racism, and its use as a strategy for economic mobility and social accep- tance, only within a U.S. context. It is certainly true, as David Roediger and other historians emphasize, that during the nineteenth century, there were strong alliances between antislavery activists, such as Frederick Douglass, and Irish leaders such as Daniel O’Connell, in the quest for Irish independence. But Roediger seems to conclude that racism was unknown to Irish and other European immigrants before their arrival in the United States. Certainly, direct exposure to those of African origins was uncom- mon, as compared to in the United States, or London, where Africans had lived for generations. Yet, as scholars from Winthrop Jordan on have de- scribed, Europeans had developed a racial perspective, and an associated vocabulary, before settling its American colonies.38 Irish,German, Italian, English, French, Spanish, and Dutch citizens also held eugenicist ideologies during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, whether or not they participated directly in the slave trade or the process of colonization. In fact, many of those countries have more recently restricted citizenship rights of those born outside their borders and within them. Italians, including Cesare Lombroso and Giuseppe
- 41. 24 | Introduction Sergi,promoted eugenicist ideologies that arose first in discussions about northern and southern Italians. Peter D’Agostino takes issue with those who view the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century as an Anglo-American system later exported to Europe rather than a system that emerged as a global phenomenon.39 Certainly the legacies of slavery and colonization had a major impact on the development of racism and its embrace by immigrants seeking incorporation into the mainstream of American society. But even those countries whose citizens were relatively unlikely to live alongside those of a different race developed racial ideologies of their own. In the late twen- tieth and early twenty-first centuries, many Europeans who remained in their countries of origin developed racial biases and nativism outside of a purely American context, partly resulting from their widespread expo- sure to American entertainment. Therefore, whiteness scholars assume that immigrants brought with them little in the way of racial conscious- ness and developed it only in an American context. U.S. Deportation Policy in a Global Context My approach to immigration policy incorporates a transnational perspec- tive.U.S. immigration officials traveled to Europe and to the Mexican side of the border to investigate conditions among immigrants bound for the United States. I further demonstrate how immigrant cultural traditions and practices often clashed with immigration policy implementation. For- eign policy and international economic issues also affected the implemen- tation of deportation policy, as well as the disposition of individual cases. The project fits squarely within the trend of immigration and other social historians examining how policy and legal issues shaped social concerns, rather than viewing political and social history in isolation. It also traces the history of immigration policy from a relatively unregulated matter be- fore the Civil War, to its early and uneven regulation at the state level, and finally to its more uniform treatment as a federal matter.40 Placing U.S. social and policy trends in a broader context also chal- lenges narratives of American exceptionalism. The United States imple- mented immigration control measures in a larger global context. In fact, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century immigration control measures were simultaneously being implemented in Canada and Aus- tralia, two Commonwealth nations that, like the United States, had been British colonies. As settler nations, early immigration policies in those three societies shared many features.Their leaders initially sought perma-
- 42. Introduction | 25 nenteconomic migrants to build their infrastructures and to fuel indus- trial and agricultural growth. It was only by the late nineteenth century that political developments enabled these three societies to regulate im- migration—for Australia and Canada that change was the creation of a Commonwealth government that preserved formal political ties to Great Britain. In the case of the United States, it emanated from an exponential growth in the size of the federal government, a process that began with the Civil War. Each nation also needed to appropriate resources, person- nel, and a system of effective documentation at its major points of entry and, later, its immigrants’ points of departure. Finally, each had a signifi- cant indigenous population that had been legally and socially subjected to the white settler population.These settler nations’ early racial and legal dynamics—indigenous peoples interacting with a predominantly Euro- pean settler population (and, in the case of the United States, a multi- racial dynamic, with a significant population of enslaved African Ameri- cans, especially in the South, and Spanish and Latin American peoples in California, Texas, Florida, and the Southwest)—influenced the contours of their subsequent national immigration policies.That context was a vital one in understanding what occurred when large numbers of Eastern and Southern European, Asian, and other nonwhite immigrants began mi- grating. Although many economic migrants to these countries intended to stay temporarily or seasonally, eventually a significant portion of those circular migrant groups settled permanently. As settler nations, the United States, Canada, and Australia formalized their immigration policies earlier than most European countries. In con- trast, early Western European immigration patterns were, as Leslie Page Moch terms it, largely “local, circular, chain, and career.” Many Europeans who migrated in the preindustrial erawere labor migrants, but others were paupers and religious refugees.41 High population growth in nineteenth- century Europe, alongside mechanization and landholding consolidation, reduced demands for immigrant laborers relative to Canada, Australia, and the United States. These three countries drew increasing numbers of Europeans who might have previously migrated locally or regionally within the continent. “Populate or perish” described Australian efforts to encourage Euro- pean migrants. Known colloquially as the White Australia policy, it re- mained in place until 1973.The first act passed by the new Commonwealth parliament in Australia in 1901 was the Commonwealth Immigration Re- striction Act (IRA). Potential immigrants who could not write out a pas-
- 43. 26 | Introduction sageof fifty words in a European language were excluded. This law was specifically designed to prohibit Asians and other non-Northern Euro- peans from settling in Australia. In addition to establishing racial categories, the Australian government excluded migrants according to characteristics that bore striking similari- ties to those inscribed in the 1891 U.S. law. The proscribed groups were “persons likely to become a public charge upon the public or charitable institutions, idiots and insane persons, persons suffering from an infec- tious orcontagious disease of a loathsome ordangerous character, persons convicted of crimes ‘not being a mere political offence’ and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer, and prostitutes or persons living on the prostitution of others.”42 One substantial difference between the U.S. and Australian acts was an exception that provided for politically based dissent. That feature acknowledged Australia’s role as place of exile for those opposing British rule.43 Following its acquisition of Commonwealth status, Canada’s immigra- tion regulation function was placed under the newly established Depart- ment of Agriculture in 1868 (until it moved to the Department of Interior in 1892). The first comprehensive immigration law in 1869 excluded any “Lunatic, Idiotic, Deaf, Dumb, Blind or Infirm” person immigrating apart from a family, as well as those who were paupers.44 That law did not pro- vide any mechanism for removal until 1887. By the mid-1880s, provisions to bar Chinese immigrants were enacted and, as in the United States, such laws were later broadened to include many Asian groups. There existed a few important differences between early U.S. and Canadian regulations— Canadian law envisioned immigrants as promoting agriculture, given Canada’s more rural economy; there was a family unity provision for those immigrants who were seen as medically unfit; and the undesirability cate- gory was initially stated as a principle rather than a policy or mandate.45 Canada enacted anti-Asian immigration legislation similar to that in the United States. First, Canada increased the head taxes for Chinese im- migrants beginning in 1885 and then passed a Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923 (repealed in 1947), and signed the anti-Japanese Gentleman’s Agree- ment at the same time as the United States. In 1914, a group of Indian Sikhs on the Komagata Maru were refused landing upon arrival in the port of Vancouver, although, because of their British citizenship, they arrived not as immigrants but as intercolonial migrants. After returning to Cal- cutta, passengers were fired upon by British officers and several passen- gers died.Canada also interned 22,000 Canadian citizens of Japanese heri-
- 44. Introduction | 27 tageand Japanese aliens during World War II. In 1967 Canada liberalized its immigration policies.46 Deportation and other immigrant regulation policies are by definition state-specific—they are highly influenced by a nation’s system of govern- ment, including the role of the judiciary, race relations, the role of activ- ists, media representation, and public attitudes and ideologies. Policies are also influenced by the history of settlement and the labor systems that emerged. Immigration, however, occurs in a wider global context that in- cludes economic development and displacement, labor demands, shifting national boundaries, international relations priorities, and more recently, terrorism. Since World War II, the development of a code of universal human rights and international bodies to regulate and standardize the treatment of migrants has also affected deportation procedures. This book addresses both the state-specific and broader considerations of U.S. deportation policy.
- 45. In 1909 CaterinaBressi was deported to Naples, Italy, with her young, American-born child, having been charged with prostitution. She spent some months sleeping on the streets of Naples, until a group of wealthy women there provided her with funds to return to the United States, where she supported herself by obtaining a low-wage job at an Illinois candy factory. Bressi claimed she was raped by a co-worker at gunpoint and became pregnant. In 1910 the twenty-three-year-old woman was ordered deported by Chicago immigration authorities on grounds that she was likely to become a public charge. Her deportation order was over- turned by Illinois Federal District Court judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis on a writ of habeas corpus. Judge Landis concluded that there was insuf- ficient evidence to suggest that because Bressi had once practiced prosti- tution and would soon become the sole support of two children that she would necessarily become a public charge. Immigration officials defended their decision to deport her a second time. “There can be no doubt that a woman of loose morals who, while attempting to maintain an appearance of respectability, consents to occasional acts of illicit sexual intercourse is by that defect of character rendered likely to become a public charge.” The official added that Bressi was unlikely to earn enough to support her family on such a low wage, especially since she was soon to enter a period of confinement.1 Bressi’s case neatly captures the relationship between sexual morality issues and women’s economic roles that emerged in the context of the United States’ rapidly industrializing society. By the early twentieth cen- tury,growingpublicconcernsovernonmaritalpregnancyandprostitution (commonly referred to as “white slavery”) helped to shape immigration policies concerning the exclusion and deportation of female immigrants WOMEN, SEXUALITY, AND ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY IN EARLY U.S. DEPORTATION POLICY 1
- 46. Caterina Bressi, withher child. (51777/231, RG 85, Entry 9, National Archives)
- 47. 30 | EarlyU.S. Deportation Policy arriving in the United States.That scrutinyof female immigrants occurred in an era in which American citizenship itself was being contested on sev- eral levels. Native-born women had renewed their mobilization for fed- eral voting rights and had begun to challenge many assumptions about their social roles. Women’s rates of employment and educational attain- ment increased in this period, leading to concerns of “women adrift” in urban settings and the rise of organizations such as the YWCA. In this era African Americans formed the NAACP and other organizations to fight Jim Crow segregation policies, and the United States expanded its politi- cal territory to include the Philippines, Panama, and Puerto Rico. Ques- tions about what legal status these countries’ inhabitants had in relation to the United States was widely debated. A major impetus for federal regulation of immigration arose from labor leaders, who sought to limit the number of alien laborers arriving in the country, on the grounds that they depressed American wages. Other early proponents of restriction in- cluded those opposed to Asian immigrants on theWest Coast and eugeni- cists who feared the effects of large-scale immigration, as well as officials in states such as New York, who sought to reduce the cost associated with the growing numberof immigrants requiring public institutional care and charity. Thus, concerns about immigrant women reflected larger social debates about who was fit for American citizenship and how the large influx of immigrants would shape American society and its institutions. Moreover, settlement house workers and other Progressive reformers widely per- ceived immigrant women, in their roles as mothers or potential mothers, to be the primary transmitters of critical cultural and moral values to the next generation. Their maternalist perspective, which emphasized the special place of mothers and children in society, was evident in settle- ment programs and in reforms such as the Sheppard-Towner Act, which provided medical care to mothers and infants.2 Regulating nonmarital sexuality at the borders, including nonmarital births and common-law marriage, ensured that the immigrant women whowere admitted would become both moral citizens themselves and the mothers of moral citizens. Citizenship and political rights for immigrant women was not an issue that began only upon their arrival. Their coun- tries of origin also shaped their relationship to the polity and influenced their economic status, as in the case of women in newly independent Ire- land. As discussed in the next chapter, widespread public fears about an international white slavery epidemic led to three Bureau of Immigration
- 48. Early U.S. DeportationPolicy | 31 investigations: in Europe, New York City, and along the Mexican border. Those inquiries also reveal much about attitudes about the relationship between sexuality, race, religion, nationality, and morality. The 1875 Page Law first addressed concerns about immigrant women’s morality by placing major constraints on the immigration of unmarried women from China, casting them as likely to engage in prostitution. The Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1882 constituted the first major federal laws regulating immigration to the United States. That 1882 law, revised in 1891, allowed for the exclusion or deportation of im- migrants who were determined to be likely to become public charges, suf- fering from a loathsome or contagious disease, or convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude. Before the 1882 Immigration Act, therewere some efforts by the states to regulate immigration at incoming ports, using boards or commissions, but there was no systematic effort to limit immigration and no federal government agency authorized or granted a budget to regulate the flow of immigrants. Over the next few decades, additional laws were passed to regulate immi- gration and to strengthen and broaden the scope of deportation policies and deepen the mechanism for enforcement of those laws and policies to the major ports of immigration, along the Canadian and Mexican border, and in many cities across the United States that became destinations for immigrants. Between 1900 and 1909, more than 8.2 million immigrants arrived in the United States, primarily from Europe. In fact, the percentage of im- migrants arriving in the United States totaled just less than 11 percent of the U.S. population, a ratio that was its second highest in history until the 1990s. The influx of immigrants from Europe began to slow by World War I. By the 1920s a series of immigration restriction acts greatly reduced the flow. The national quota system did not place numerical restrictions on immigrants from Canada or Mexico, though they were subject to other forms of regulation, based on public health restrictions, for example. By the Great Depression of the 1930s, large numbers of immigrants, espe- cially Mexicans, were deported or pressured to repatriate to their coun- tries of origin.3 Some of the state-level policies carried over to federal policy, includ- ing precedents about “paupers” and pregnant women. The “likely to be- come a public charge” (LPC) provision was a modern incarnation of tra- ditional Anglo-American poor laws, which reinforced prevalent views about women’s economic vulnerability and dependency on male wage
- 49. 32 | EarlyU.S. Deportation Policy earners. Therefore, female immigrants became vulnerable especially to the LPC provision but also to increasing social concerns about women’s morality.4 These two issues were intertwined, because women who immi- grated outside family structures were viewed as far more economically vulnerable than men. If they were unable to earn a living in industry or domestic service, they might turn to prostitution, as had women such as Caterina Bressi. Indeed, for many women in industrializing capital econo- mies, prostitution served as one of the few profitable alternatives to do- mestic service or low-paid factory jobs. As with domestic service or fac- tory jobs, there was a clear demand for such work in the United States. Because it was easier to prove, women who were suspected of prostitu- tion or who lived with their partners or children outside of a formal mar- riagewere often excluded on the basis of the LPC provision rather than on grounds of prostitution or moral turpitude. Indeed, LPC and other provi- sions related to economic dependency were the most common reason for exclusion, in large part because it was an easier charge to substantiate. In 1916, for example, 10,263 people were excluded at the ports of entry and returned to their countries of origin on the basis of the LPC provision. That numberequaled 55 percent of those excluded that year. Additionally, 1,431 immigrants were deported after having resided in the United States because they were or were deemed likely to become dependent on public funds or to become inmates of public institutions.5 In the first two decades of the twentieth century, women of all nation- alities constituted about a third of all immigrants arriving in the United States, but they were proportionately more likely than men to face LPC charges, especially if they were unmarried and traveling outside a family structure. In contrast, the numbers of immigrant women excluded from the United States on the basis of prostitution ranged from 80 in 1892 to 510 in 1917, and in six years no immigrants were excluded for prostitution.The mean number of immigrant women excluded annually for prostitution in the years from 1892 to 1920 was 131. The number of immigrant women deported on grounds of prostitution (after having resided in the United States) remained low, generally fewer than 200 per year before 1920.Thus, immigrant women whowere excluded ordeported from the United States in theseyears generally found that immigration officials used provisions of the LPC clause more than those of prostitution.6 By 1910, female immigrants traveling alone from Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, Asia, and the Middle East were routinely scrutinized to deter- mine their moral, familial, and economic status. Female sexual behavior
- 50. Early U.S. DeportationPolicy | 33 had previously surfaced in state-level immigration policies. In Pennsyl- vania, for example, state officials developed a policy of deporting single, pregnant immigrant women in the 1880s. In 1884 Pennsylvania noted in “The Second Immigration Report of the Board of Commissioners of Pub- lic Charities for the Year Ending June 30, 1884” that seventeen persons were returned to Europe that year. The report writer noted with typical Victorian delicacy, “Twelve (12) of those were incapacitated for labor on account of illness, or inability, and five (5) were enciente [sic].” A simi- lar situation was reported by Frederick Busch, keeper of the Erie County Almshouse, who noted that his agency had assisted a twenty-four-year- old German woman who had been sent alone to the United States by the father of her child and was later returned to Germany by the State Board of Charities. When immigration was regulated by the states, there were relatively few legal mechanisms and virtually no resources expended to address immigration law. Therefore, there was little enforcement regulat- ing immigrants from Europe until the close of the nineteenth century.7 Some early principles determining the grounds for deportation influ- enced the development of federal policy. For example, the policy of ex- cluding or deporting women who were pregnant on the grounds of their likelihood to become public charges carried over to federal policy follow- ing the passage of the Immigration Act of 1882, which transferred the en- forcement of immigration policy to the federal government. Even when written as gender neutral, immigration laws and policies concerning sexual morality, economic independence, and public health had signifi- cantly divergent effects on men and women. Ultimately, the policies that sought to prevent women who had sexual relations outside of marriage, defined by evidence of prostitution, nonmarital pregnancy, or adultery, restricted all women’s ability to immigrate to the United States unaccom- panied by husbands or fathers. By the early twentieth century, the Bureau of Immigration used its gate-keeping authority to promote marriage be- tween partners who were not legally married, a policy that shares similari- ties with federal initiatives designed to encourage heterosexual marriage initiated during the Bush administration.The richlydetailed case files and administrative records of the Bureau of Immigration, housed in the Na- tional Archives, offer crucial insights into attitudes toward those female immigrants who immigrated independently from their families and how those who faced exclusion or deportation proceedings were treated.8 The close regulation of single female immigrants marked a significant change from earlier in the nineteenth century, when Irish and Scandina-
- 51. 34 | EarlyU.S. Deportation Policy vian women regularly immigrated to the United States alone to serve as domestic servants, just as in the colonial era many young women arrived as servants or indentured servants. Though some of those women ulti- mately became dependent on charity and engaged in prostitution, con- cerns about immigrant women’s morality were not as widespread as they were by the 1890s.9 Moreover, in prior eras of significant immigration, women’s immigration remained largely regulated by communities and in- stitutions in the countries of origin. Once in the United States, immigrant women’s moral regulation continued in the ethnic communities in which they settled, rather than by the state. But during the Progressive Era, the United States began to industrialize rapidly, and urban centers grew as a result of regional migration from rural areas and immigration. As women entered the industrial workforce in unprecedented numbers, social con- cerns about sexual morality intensified. On theWest Coast, anti-Asian sentiment led to new measures designed to severely restrict Chinese immigrants and others from immigrating to and settling in the United States. During the nineteenth century, Chinese immigration to the United States was overwhelmingly male, a situation that, coupled with antimiscegenation laws and the men’s ineligibility for citizenship status, made Chinese immigrants’ permanent settlement diffi- cult. By 1875 the Page Law made it even more difficult for Chinese women to immigrate to the United States because of their suspected involvement in prostitution. By the 1880s the number of immigrants from Europe was surging, and these “new” immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy, and elsewhere rapidly changed the composition of urban areas in many re- gions of the country. Many immigrant women sought work in factories and in other industrial settings at the same time that rural American-born women moved into urban areas looking for employment. But as the num- bers of young single women employed in wage labor increased, so too did concerns about their sexual morality. The proportion of female immigrant workers in various ethnic com- munities varied significantly. Italian women, for example, were less likely than other groups (including Irish, Scandinavian, or Jewish women) to immigrate to the United States or to work in urban factories or in domes- tic service. Many chose instead to immigrate within Europe or to oversee family farms while their male relatives sought the higher-paid work avail- able to men in the United States. Indeed, the proportion of Italians and Syrians immigrating to the United States in this era was heavily skewed toward men.10
- 52. Early U.S. DeportationPolicy | 35 Regulating Relationships, Promoting Marriage In addition to investigating the white slave trade, immigration officials interrogated women about the intimate details of their sexual lives dur- ing board of special inquiry hearings and interceded when they received care in hospitals and other institutions. In some cases, officials provided women with reprieves if they promised to reform their behavior and al- lowed them to remain in the country if theyagreed to marry their partners. That opportunity for redemption was not available to all women, how- ever. Implementation of the policy was often racialized—relationships between men and women could be categorized differently depending on those immigrants’ nationalities and the perception of those women’s fit- ness for American citizenship. In some cases, immigrant women faced de- portation as a result of being unmarried mothers, living in common-law marriages, or engaging in prostitution. Officials could intervene dramati- cally in the lives and bodies of immigrant women, beyond simply physi- cally inspecting them at the border or port of debarkation. In the nineteenth century, deportation policies and procedures often assumed that women were economically dependent on men, even when those female immigrants had work experience. Women traveling alone or with children were often vulnerable to the LPC charge in ways that women immigrating as wives and daughters accompanied by their male relatives were not. Affidavits of support submitted on behalf of female im- migrants facing deportation proceedings were generally written by their male relatives in the United States. Immigrant women facing deportation on LPC grounds often brought with them skills suitable for an industri- alizing society. But their skills were not often recognized by immigration officials to the same extent as men’s.Therefore, immigration laws and poli- cies concerning morality were frequently based on erroneous assumptions about women’s moral vulnerability and economic dependency in this era. Yet immigrant women were increasingly participating in the workforce as they constituted a growing segment of the industrial and service sectors in their countries of origin and in the United States.11 During theirdeportation hearings, where they were often without legal representation, women were questioned in detail about their sexual prac- tices and histories.Three Danish sisters, Anna,Caroline, and ElvineWang, living in the United States apart from male partners, were deported with three children, because those children were born outside of marriage.The third and youngest sister, Elvine, aged twenty-two, was childless and em- ployed as a cook. As the immigration official on the case noted, “Standing
- 53. 36 | EarlyU.S. Deportation Policy alone she would doubtless be regarded as admissible, but having arrived with her sisters, her case should, in my opinion, stand or fall with theirs.” The youngest sister had admitted having sexual relations once. The offi- cial concluded that “These three sisters seem to represent an undesirable lot.” Although the issue of whether fornication constituted moral turpi- tude was contested within the Bureau of Immigration, he recommended that their appeal be dismissed on the grounds that they were members of an undesirable class and as LPC.12 That same day, in another case, an immigrant couple, Paul Overlie and Anne Moen of Norway, were successful in appealing theirexclusion order. They were engaged, but not yet married and were excluded at the border on charges of fornication, a crime of moral turpitude. But, according to their case file, the couple “claim[ed] to be engaged, that their intentions are honorable and that they will marry just as soon as they can get started in this country. They admit having intercourse, but only after betrothal.” Though Commissioner Clark recommended exclusion, Commissioner- General Daniel J. Keefe overruled this decision, noting, “Their marriage would render them admissible. As they are in every other respect desir- able immigrants, I recommend that their appeal be sustained on condi- tion that they are married before being landed.”13 A second case shared several similarities. Two Swedish immigrants, Johan Jansson and Helga Johanson, appealed theirexclusion on grounds of moral turpitude.They were engaged for “a number of years” but had been living together before marriage, stating that economic circumstances and military service had delayed their marriage. Each wore a betrothal ring en- graved with the date December 24, 1908, and stated their willingness “to marry at once.” Daniel Keefe stated, “Under the circumstances, however, I do not think these aliens could be properlyexcluded on the grounds taken by the board.Their intentions appear to have been sincere and honorable toward one another and they have regarded themselves virtually married. They are desirable immigrants in every respect.” Indeed, their case file notes that they were married at the Quebec Immigration Station before being admitted to the United States on August 10.14 Immigration officials imposed harsher penalties on some immigrants whose partnerships were widely accepted in their countries of origin. For example, in parts of the Caribbean common-law marriages remained rou- tine and culturally sanctioned, and in Japan relationships that did not conform to conventional Western ideals of marriage were commonly ac-
- 54. Early U.S. DeportationPolicy | 37 cepted.Yet such relationships subjected women, and much less frequently, their partners, to deportation once they arrived in the United States. Caroline Stewart, a Jamaican-born domestic servant and the mother of a thirteen-year-old daughter with James Butler, was deported in 1912 after arriving in Jacksonville, Florida. Stewart and Butler had a long-term rela- tionship, he readily acknowledged paternity of their child, and the couple had known each other since childhood. Yet his assurances that he would make her “his bona fide” wife were insufficiently convincing to authori- ties, in part because hewas the fatherof otherchildren outside of marriage and thus was “morally irresponsible.” That both Stewart and Butler were parents, but neither had ever been legally married, posed a problem for immigration authorities. Stewart’s attorney appealed the deportation de- cision on the grounds that she “would not be an undesirable citizen, and that she comes to this country to marry a man who is a sober, law abiding person of good character,” and that her testimony “does not show that she is guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.” Moreover, Stewart was un- likely to become a public charge—in fact, she had more than $200 in her possession when entering with less than $50 signaled poverty.Yet, despite these mitigating factors, her appeal was denied. Though he had been in the United States for just ten months, it does not appear that James But- ler, also a Jamaican, faced any charges arising from the case. The fact that both were Jamaican might well have led immigration authorities to scru- tinize their relationship carefully. As Caribbean immigrants, and as people of color, they would have been perceived as less desirable future citizens than European immigrants and so would be less likely to be allowed to immigrate after agreeing to marry legally.15 In 1912 Ysabel Hernandez, a twenty-year-old dressmaker from Cuba, failed in her appeal. She had previously been deported from the United States on LPC charges.The bureau officials did not believe herexplanation that the man who met her at the port in Tampa was her brother Preciliano and that she was joining “her lover” Rudolfo Gonzalez so they could be married, a statement that was verified by a notary public who accompa- nied her brother to the immigration office. Despite the subsequent inter- vention of an attorney, who submitted an affidavit on her behalf, she was deemed to be coming over for immoral purposes, in part because of in- consistencies in details about her brothers, but also because “there is no family resemblance between the two aliens and that the appearance of the appellant is very unfavorable.”16
- 55. Other documents randomlyhave different content
- 56. think her insensible,unkind; he would believe that she did not care for him, and did not want to care. What a wonder if his feelings towards her underwent a change! What more probable than that now, when she had learnt that his esteem was the only thing necessary to her happiness, and earnestly wished he could know that she no longer blamed him, he had resolved to think of her no more? Owing to a slight indisposition of Mrs. Bingley's, the Desborough party had not come over to Pemberley at Christmas, as was their custom, but they arrived on New Year's Eve to spend two or three days. Georgiana looked forward rather nervously to the meeting with Kitty, for the latter had only written occasional notes to her and Elizabeth, in a constrained style, since the departure in November, and Georgiana dreaded equally any reopening of the subject in words, or any coldness between them, combined with the unforgiving reproaches which Kitty knew so well how to convey by look and manner. It seemed, however, when they arrived, that Kitty was not going to adopt either attitude precisely. She looked very thin, and Jane told her sister that she had not been eating or sleeping well, but she chatted as vigorously as ever, and was in restless, excitable spirits. She could not sit long to anything, and when not flying about the house, or playing with the children, was constantly running down to the Rectory, on the plea of wanting to see Mrs. Ferrars's new baby, who had made its appearance in the world a few days before. Georgiana found that any private talk was out of the question, and did not seem to be desired by Kitty, whose principal topic of conversation was, after the loveliness of the baby, the charms of her newest friend, a certain Mrs. Henry Tilney, sister of Mr. Morland, who had been staying with him for some weeks. This young lady was about Kitty's age, but had been married for several years, and had brought one of her children with her, a little girl about the age of the Bingleys' second boy, and there had evidently
- 57. been a greatdeal of intercourse between the Park and the Rectory. Mrs. Tilney was reported by Jane and her husband to be a very pleasing, gentle and amiable woman, and Kitty's enthusiasm over her knew no bounds. Elizabeth had met Mrs. Tilney, and was pleased to hear of her again, as she would have been to hear of anyone connected with Mr. Morland and Lady Portinscale; and the subject offered material for frequent conversation among the whole party, as Mrs. Grant and Miss Crawford had an interest in it also, through their acquaintanceship with the young clergyman in Bath. Georgiana could not help glancing at Kitty occasionally when his name was mentioned, and noticed that the slight embarrassment Kitty displayed at first soon wore off. There had evidently been a good many visitors at Desborough during the past month; Bingley had had another shooting party, and there had been evenings of music, and even a small dance at the house of a neighbour. Kitty spoke of these things as if the retrospect were one of great enjoyment, and Morland was so often referred to, as to lead to the supposition that their constant meetings were fraught with no discomfort on either side. But you have not told all our gaieties, Kitty, said Bingley, as they stood round the drawing-room fire one morning after breakfast. Did you know, Elizabeth, that we went to see the amateur theatricals at Ashbourne? The officers got them up among themselves and invited everybody; it was quite a spectacle, and they gave us supper afterwards in that fine great mess-room. I never saw anything better done. Yes, we had an invitation; I was sorry not to go to it, but it is too far, said Elizabeth. I heard the performance was very good. Of course, you would have been asked; you ought to have gone, for it was well worth seeing; our little charades were quite put in the shade. Kitty can give you all information about it, for she had a splendid young officer sitting by her to tell her who everybody was.
- 58. It was onlyMr. Cathcart; he knew Colonel Forster once, and wanted to hear about Lydia, said Kitty, colouring and becoming deeply interested in the pattern of her lace handkerchief. And the one who escorted you to supper was not Mr. Cathcart; he was somebody even more gorgeous and equally delightful—a field- marshal, at least, I should think, continued her brother-in-law in bantering tones; altogether, Kitty did very well that evening. I expected Jane would have had half the regiment coming up to her before it was over, to ask leave to call. Nonsense, Bingley, said Kitty, in some confusion, getting up and going to help Mary Crawford, who was sorting her music; you are making too much of it; there was no reason why Mr. Macdonald should not call, if he wished to. Bingley laughed, and proceeded to give so lively a description of the theatricals, that Kitty could not help coming back and joining in, with sparkling eyes and every sign of pleasure in the reminiscence. Georgiana watched her in some surprise, for nothing could be more unlike the broken-hearted Kitty who had gone away six weeks before. Bingley forbore to tease her any longer; but finding himself alone with Elizabeth and Georgiana later in the morning, he began at once: I think neither of you need be under any more apprehension about Kitty. She was certainly very low-spirited when she came to us, and I was afraid that young sailor's departure had had a devastating effect; but she has brightened up wonderfully and managed to enjoy herself again, just as a girl ought. I am very glad, said Elizabeth. I knew she had taken it a good deal to heart at the time, but fresh interests will put fresh life into her. Exactly; there is no use in a pretty young woman like that moping about a fellow who does not care for her; the best way to forget him is to amuse herself with others, and I feel myself partly responsible for encouraging that young Price, so Jane and I have done our best to distract her thoughts. Those officers are as pleasant a set of
- 59. fellows as everstepped, and Kitty by no means disliked them; but unfortunately the regiment is just moving on, and the next one does not come till March. I have asked Bertram down again at the end of the month for some hunting; Kitty and he seemed to get on well, and we thought him a capital fellow, did you not? Very agreeable indeed, said Elizabeth, in a tone of calmer praise, adding: and I have no doubt he is an excellent young man, though in spite of all, I should be inclined to adhere to Kitty's first preference to his cousin; Mr. Price's manners had more to recommend them, I thought. Georgiana's heart bounded, and she turned away her face to hide her rising colour, as Bingley responded: Ah, yes, Elizabeth, you are right. In spite of all, as you say, Price is the man we should have liked for her. There is a sterling character, I do believe. It would have done most of us good to have to begin early, and make our own fortunes, as that youth has done, and we should not be all so frank and modest at his age, I'll wager. Yes, I should be only too glad to get him back, but it is out of the question. I had a letter from him last week from Copenhagen; they expect to be cruising about in the North Sea for another month or two; then he will probably have to go to some distant station. Georgiana had turned now to look at Bingley, her complexion changing from red to pale. She was grateful to Elizabeth for keeping the conversation going by some slight remark, for she could not have spoken. Yes, continued Bingley, we think it a great drawback to a sailor's life, that he should have to be abroad so much, and away from his friends; but cruises now are not as long as they used to be, and when a man has as much spirit as Price, he is glad to be on the move, to show authorities the stuff he is made of. Price is commander on his present ship, you know; the first since his promotion.
- 60. The entrance ofJane caused Bingley to break off, and Georgiana waited a little, in the hope that he had more to say on a subject of such an absorbing nature; but, unfortunately, it was Mr. Bertram, not Mr. Price, to whom he reverted, calling upon Jane to confirm his expectations of the former's visit, and Georgiana slipped out of the room as Jane began to tell Elizabeth how she had succeeded in obtaining Mr. Bennet's permission to keep Kitty until Easter. Georgiana needed to think over what she had heard, even though the pain to herself became more intense, in proportion as she gloried in the approval expressed of William Price by her friends. To hear him praised, to know him appreciated, was sweet to her; but how bitter by contrast was the knowledge that she had sacrificed his happiness and her own, in vain, that Kitty had so soon forgotten him as to be able to flirt with officers, and was ready to accept as a compensation for the loss of William Price, the attentions of any young men Bingley could collect around her! Georgiana could scarcely believe that the devotion of half a year could have died a natural death in so short a time. She might almost have thought that Kitty was feigning indifference, in order to conceal her chagrin, but from experience of Kitty's nature she knew that her friend was incapable of acting a sustained part, and that if she appeared to enjoy balls and flirtations, it was because they had for her as much zest as ever. Georgiana might wonder, but she had no inclination to blame Kitty for any sign of inconsistency. It was undoubtedly much better for Kitty to get over her infatuation for William Price, if she could succeed in doing so; but the consequences to Georgiana were far more grave, and she suffered the more for realizing that Kitty had not, after all, so greatly valued the thing she had sought after, the object which had become more and more precious to Georgiana than anything in the world. Her effort to defend Kitty to William, her refusal to accept his devotion for herself—all had been wasted, fruitless, unnecessary! Not that she would for one moment desire to withdraw the act of loyalty towards her friend; but with heart- breaking regrets did she review the whole sequence of events, which
- 61. had so cruellyand inevitably separated William Price and herself. Was it, she thought, a just punishment for one who had made two such grievous mistakes previously that she should now be accorded, too late, a glimpse of a happiness that would have transformed her whole life? Bingley's casual mention of his movements had reminded her forcibly how improbable it was that they should ever meet again. She had borne up bravely until then, but that night, when alone, she could not help giving way to an access of grief severer than any she had known before, and only a dread of arousing comment enabled her to assume an air of tolerable serenity when she appeared in the morning. It happened that Jane, while admiring a new dress which Georgiana was wearing, was struck with the want of animation in the young girl's face, and her usual kindness prompted her to inquire solicitously how she did. Georgiana would confess to no ailment but a slight cold, which she had had for a week and been unable to throw off, and tried to make light of it when Jane appealed to Elizabeth to suggest what might be done to re-establish her health. Elizabeth felt a real concern as she looked closely at her young sister, and reproached herself for having neglected to give her proper care. No, no, indeed, Elizabeth, it is not so, protested Georgiana. I am perfectly well. A cold always makes one feel stupid, and this mild damp weather is disagreeable, coming after those early frosts. Come and stay with us for two or three weeks, said Jane affectionately. The change will do you good, and Bingley and I shall be happy to have you; your last visit was an unreasonably short one. Georgiana gratefully but decidedly declined the offer, pleading various excuses, but privately feeling that she would rather not be with Kitty again just yet, amid scenes connected inseparably with William Price's presence.
- 62. I think sheought to have a change, nevertheless, said Elizabeth, and it is too long to wait till we go to Bath in April. Would you not really care to go to Desborough for a little, Georgiana, and see if it does you good? Georgiana faltered out something of reluctance, and Jane, smiling kindly at her, went away to leave the sisters to discuss it together. Elizabeth drew the young girl to her, and tenderly asked if there was anything the matter, in which her help or advice would be acceptable, and Georgiana, after a few moments' silent struggle, recovered the self-command which the proffer of sympathy had threatened to disturb, and replied that she was sure she would be quite well directly, and would rather not go away from home until she went with the others. You are sure there is nowhere you would like to go, if not Desborough? asked Elizabeth, pondering. The Hursts would be delighted, I know, but you have been there lately; what a pity Mrs. Annesley has gone abroad. Georgiana only shook her head at these suggestions, and suddenly Elizabeth exclaimed: I have thought of something—Mrs. Wentworth's invitation! You remember that she asked you, in the letter I had from her with reference to her father and Miss Crawford. You thought at the time that you might like to accept it some day. The idea seemed to interest Georgiana more than the others. She raised her head from Elizabeth's shoulder, and said: I remember; it was a very kind message. The Wentworths live at Winchester, do they not? Yes, and Anne Wentworth is so good-hearted, so thoroughly sincere, that I know she would like to be taken at her word, and to have you propose yourself as a visitor. What do you think of it, Georgiana? I think you might be very happy with such kind people, and the change of air and surroundings would be complete. It seems a very long way off, I know, but you could be taken to London in the carriage, with the two servants, as last year; and Captain Wentworth
- 63. would doubtless beable to meet you there, for he makes that journey constantly. Your brother and I would come and fetch you any time, after Miss Crawford goes, as soon as you wish to come away. Elizabeth rose and went to her writing-table, to find Mrs. Wentworth's letter, and to show Georgiana the message once more. The cordiality which it expressed could not be doubted, and Georgiana began to feel that if she could ever find pleasure in anything again, it might be in the quiet companionship of such friends as Captain and Mrs. Wentworth. She had been greatly attracted by Mrs. Wentworth, and she had sufficient good sense to know that it would be advantageous to her to have an entire change of environment, to be away for a time from Pemberley, and its associations. It would revive her courage, and help her to appreciate the many blessings that life still held for her. Georgiana was not too young not to believe that her troubles were past mending, but she was also too reasonable deliberately to nurse her unhappiness. She accordingly allowed Elizabeth to write and propose the scheme, and had grown so much accustomed to the idea as to be pleased when an answer arrived in the form of a joint letter from the Wentworths, warmly welcoming her to join their house, with every intimation of the delight it would afford them, and suggesting the last week in January as the date for her journey to London, where her host would meet her, and convey her straight to Winchester, a distance of sixty-five miles. The arrangement was generally approved. Darcy and Elizabeth regretted losing their sister, even for a time; but they hoped it would be beneficial to her, and they could perceive that it fell in with her inclinations. There was no lack of escort, for Mrs. Grant and Miss Crawford, who were now talking of going in earnest, were anxious to alter their plans and travel to Bath round by London, for the pleasure of her company; but Darcy would not permit this, as he had resolved on taking his sister himself, and Elizabeth induced them to remain with her until his return.
- 64. Chapter XXIV January waspassing. The weather was remarkably mild and open for the time of year, and the hunting men were rejoicing in their opportunities. The ladies were able to take their daily walks and drives, in which Mrs. Ferrars's sister, Mrs. Brandon, a very lovely and amiable woman, who had come to watch over her sister's convalescence, was often invited to join them. Mrs. Jennings had returned to London earlier in the month, sorely disappointed, after such a promising beginning, at not having seen the successful termination of even one love-affair during her stay. None of the family at Pemberley had ever understood what part she played in the catastrophe of November, except that she had shared in the general error made by Kitty's friends, nor were they aware of the destiny she had marked out for Georgiana; but Elinor, when she realized that something had gone seriously wrong in consequence of the ball, had no difficulty in persuading the really good-natured old lady to confine her lamentations, conjectures, and comments to the ears of the Rectory inhabitants only. This end was the more easily attained since, after Kitty's departure, there was no one to keep her supplied with information. When, however, that young lady returned in apparently good spirits, Mrs. Jennings was immeasurably delighted, and quite entered into her willingness to talk of Cathcart and Macdonald, and, indeed, anyone and anything but William Price, and Mrs. Jennings had only to hear that Mr. Bertram was coming to stay at Desborough again, and not at Pemberley, to be ready to console Kitty with a number of entirely new and revised prognostications as to the object of his visit. The party at Pemberley were sitting together one evening after dinner. It was about eight o'clock, and they had all settled to their customary occupations; Darcy and his wife were reading, Mrs. Grant working and Georgiana was at the instrument, playing short snatches of music while Mary Crawford sat close beside her, and
- 65. asked for oneand another of her favourite pieces. Peace and tranquility reigned, and seemed as little likely to be interrupted as on many previous evenings that had been similarly spent. The sudden sound of carriage wheels, therefore, and the rapid trot of horses, startled everyone, and alarmed one at least, for Elizabeth's first apprehension was that Colonel Fitzwilliam had returned unexpectedly. Georgiana ceased playing, and all listened anxiously, but the suspense lasted for the shortest possible time required by a visitor to get into the house, and on the door being flung open, Darcy had scarcely risen from his chair, before Tom Bertram followed his name into the room with quick steps. Tom Bertram had acted on many stages, but in none of the parts he had ever played had he made so sensational an entrance. The amazement of the inmates of the room on beholding him, the dismay of Mrs. Grant and her sister, his own disconcerted surprise at seeing who were Mrs. Darcy's guests, all tended to make the first minute one of extreme embarrassment, and it was only the knowledge of his urgency of his errand that enabled him to recover himself sooner than any of the others. Advancing to Mr. and Mrs. Darcy, he greeted them both, bowed to Mrs. Grant, and to the corner of the room where Mary was shrinking out of sight behind Georgiana, and at once began speaking very quickly to the master of the house. Mr. Darcy, I fear I have startled, I hope not frightened, you all by intruding at this late hour; but when you know how pressing is the need, you will dispense with apologies. I grieve very much to say to say I am the bearer of bad news, but believing that you ought to know, I constituted myself the messenger. Your cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, has met with an accident whilst out hunting to-day. I regret exceedingly to tell you, but his state is considered serious, and his friends thought it would be advisable for you to come. Fitzwilliam? Fitzwilliam hurt! Good God, what is this? exclaimed Darcy, completely roused out of his usual calm. How did it happen? Tell us all about it. I will go to him instantly (ringing the bell). In
- 66. God's name, Bertram,say he is still living? Where is he? How long will it take to get to him? Elizabeth, though dreadfully shocked and distressed, had the wisdom to send another servant for refreshments for Mr. Bertram, while Darcy ordered his own things to be packed and his travelling carriage be brought round, and in the slight bustle caused by these arrangements, Mrs. Grant and Georgiana were able, almost unobserved, to attend to Mary, who had not actually fainted, but had sunk down on a low couch, scarcely knowing what she did. Her sister and Georgiana supported her in between them, placed her in a more easy position, rubbed her hands and shielded her from the light; and Mary, with a very great effort, collected herself sufficiently to listen to the details which Mr. Bertram was hurriedly giving in answer to Mr. and Mrs. Darcy's inquiries. It appeared that Colonel Fitzwilliam had only just returned from London, and this was his first day out for some time. The fox had got well away, and the hunt were in the midst of a fine run, when the Colonel's horse came down with him at a blind fence. Bertram paused here to give more particulars than his impatient hearers desired, about the height and width of the fence, and the exact manner in which the horse had approached it, for it seemed that he himself had been riding near at the time, and had witnessed the accident. The Colonel was pinned under the animal, and was taken out unconscious, with a broken leg, and, it was feared, some grave injury to the spine. Fortunately, the house of the friend with whom he was staying was not far off, and he was borne thither, and the services of the apothecary were promptly obtained; but the only opinion he could form was very grave, and pending the arrival of a more experienced surgeon, who had been sent for from Leicester, no one could tell what an hour might bring forth. The ladies were sick with horror: Mrs. Grant was weeping silently, and Georgiana, as she held Mary's cold hand, felt that this was indeed the last and crowning sorrow, for poor Cousin Robert to die without knowing the happiness that ought to have been his.
- 67. The pulse isso very weak; I think they fear a collapse of the whole system, even if he does recover consciousness, said Bertram, in too low a tone to be heard by those at the other end of the room. They were trying stimulants of various kinds when I came away. Elizabeth's face was hidden. Darcy was too much overwhelmed to speak for some moments, till with a sudden start of recollection he exclaimed: And you, Bertram? how came you to be there? and how come you are here now? Bertram, with a return to something of his nonchalant manner, explained that he, too, had been staying in the same neighbourhood, with a friend, who was, in fact, the master of that pack of hounds, and with whom he often spent a few days in the hunting season, as it was little over twenty miles from his own house, Mansfield Park. I had been talking to Colonel Fitzwilliam during the morning, he continued, and helped to carry him back to Ashley's place, and when Ashley said his relations ought to know, I decided at once to come with the news. I only delayed to change my clothes and have the chaise got ready, for I knew time was an object, and I could get over the ground quicker than anyone else they could send. I am sure we are deeply indebted to you, Bertram, said Darcy, grasping him warmly by the hand, while Elizabeth joined him in expressing the sincerest gratitude. You could not have done us a greater service, and it is one we shall never forget. It was an impulse of true goodness and unselfishness that prompted you to ride straight to us, disregarding your own fatigue and inconvenience; few men would have done as much. Bertram disclaimed, and as Georgiana came forward to add her thanks to those of the others, he bowed to her with gallantry, assuring her that fatigue was nothing, if he could be of use to friends whom he so greatly esteemed, and he only wished that he could have brought news to relieve anxiety, instead of creating it.
- 68. By this timeword was brought that the more substantial meal which had been ordered for Mr. Bertram was ready in the dining-room, and Darcy escorted him thither, to attend to his wants and to obtain the particulars as to his journey from Leicestershire. The distance was forty-five miles, and Darcy proposed to start within half an hour, and reach his destination some time during the night, but he pressed his visitor to stay at least until the next day, and if he would, to rest himself and his horses. Their peaceful evening had been turned into confusion and wretchedness. The quiet circle in the drawing-room was broken up, and Mrs. Grant, fearing greatly for her sister, was thankful to lead her to her own room, there to recover as best she might from the frightful shock of Tom Bertram's news. Darcy soon went upstairs to prepare for his journey, and his wife busied herself with helping him, and with placing in his luggage any article she could think of that might conduce to the sick man's comfort, while a maze of thoughts occupied her mind, chilling fear, apprehension, and dread of what might be happening to the loved friend at such a distance, and anxiety on account of Miss Crawford, whose trembling and distressed condition had not escaped her. A few minutes later Georgiana came to her door, showing traces of tears, but quite calm, and begging to be made useful. Elizabeth was just then giving some directions to the maid, so Georgiana waited until they were done, and then, coming close to her sister, she said: Elizabeth, do you think we could do anything for Miss Crawford? I went to wish her good-night, and she tried to smile and say something sympathizing, but could hardly utter the words. I am sure she is terribly concerned about all this. She almost looks like a different person, so pale and stricken. Do you think she can possibly be caring for Cousin Robert all the time, and not know it till now? Oh, dear Elizabeth, is it not dreadful to think it may be too late? Elizabeth gazed at her sister, listening intently, and pondering all Georgiana said. True, indeed, that it would be a dreadful thing to contemplate, if Mary really loved Fitzwilliam, and the knowledge
- 69. came too lateto do good to either. And even if Mary knew her own heart at last, was it not too late, when pride sealed her lips, and Fitzwilliam was lying near to death, forty miles away, perhaps never more able to see her or hear her? Elizabeth experienced a momentary feeling of despair; the powers ranged against her seemed almost too strong to be attacked; but rallying her forces, and putting in the front of her mind the one hopeful thought that Fitzwilliam might live till Darcy reached him, or longer, she said to Georgiana: I think I shall try; I will ask her to send him a message, if it is as we think; it will be better than nothing, even if he is only just able to understand it. Oh, yes, yes, exclaimed Georgiana, clasping her hands in intense eagerness, do ask her, dear Elizabeth; she will surely tell you, and my brother will tell him. Whatever happens, she will be glad to think she has done it. Do ask her; do not lose a minute; there is so little time. Voices were heard in the corridor; Darcy was speaking to the servants, who were carrying out his luggage. Elizabeth hesitated no longer, pausing only to say: Dear Georgiana, would you mind going to sit with Mr. Bertram? I am afraid it may be tiresome for you to entertain a stranger just now, but he is alone, and it would be only a kind attention, after what he has done for us, and to receive Georgiana's assent, before going swiftly to Miss Crawford's room. She found that Georgiana's description had been all too accurate. Miss Crawford had not wept, but her expression of hopeless misery sent a pang through Elizabeth's heart. She had sent her sister away, and had been sitting on her bed, too stunned for action, almost for thought, and she made no resistance when Elizabeth placed her on the couch, sat beside her, and taking both her hands, began to plead with her, quickly and simply, without premeditation. Dear Miss Crawford, I have come to ask you to do something for my poor cousin, something which only you can do. You heard what Mr. Bertram said, of his dangerous state, and it distressed you as much as us, I know. I would not for a moment seek to pry into your
- 70. inmost feelings, butwe are come to matters of life and death, and it is on his account that I do venture to ask you, if you feel that you could listen to him if he were here, then will you send him a word, a message, something to show that you are thinking of him? Mary replied after a minute or two, in a stifled voice: I would send him such a message, but do you think he would care to have it? I do, indeed, most truly. I understand your hesitation; you think you cannot speak of love to him, when he has not spoken to you; but I would stake my life on his devotion and faithfulness. The words you send him will bring comfort and peace of mind, whatever the issue. Mary shuddered, and withdrew her trembling hands. Mr. Bertram seems to think he will die. We cannot tell; he is a strong man and had not had the best advice when Mr. Bertram was there. We can only hope, and my husband is starting almost immediately, and will carry any message you feel able to send, trusting that he will be in time to deliver it. Oh, yes, yes, exclaimed Mary, rising and walking restlessly about the room; he is so good and generous that if he still cares, he would overlook all, he would pardon the errors and foolishness that have led to this misunderstanding—but the past, Mrs. Darcy, does he know and forgive that? I wish I could tell. Seeing Mr. Bertram brings it all back again—my brother, his sister—the divorce—what Lady Catherine heard, the world believes, you know—and just when one repents it all most, it comes back just like a spectre to haunt one. Elizabeth replied very earnestly: At such a time as this, it would be cruel to mislead you, and I only say what I sincerely believe, that Colonel Fitzwilliam knows everything to which you refer, and it makes not the smallest difference to him. It would not, you should be aware, to any man whose love was worthy of the name. That should not weigh with you for a moment. The only thing that signifies in the least is whether you can return that love: the only barrier between you is being unable to return it. I would not urge you against your will, or take advantage of a moment of strong
- 71. emotion; you aloneknow whether it would make you happier to send a word of hope to him. Happier? Ah, I do not know, said Mary sorrowfully. I do not seem able to think of happiness. And yet, I should be glad for him to know, since you think he still cares to know, and it is all I can now do for him. You need not be afraid of my not trusting my feelings, Mrs. Darcy. This has shown me all too late what they really are, though my folly and obstinacy have blinded me all these months. We will not say too late, dear Miss Crawford, said Elizabeth, going up to where Miss Crawford was standing by the mantelshelf, leaning her head on her arm. We do not know that it is too late, and I believe that it will be an immense comfort to you to take this one step. Explanations can come after. I am not afraid of Colonel Fitzwilliam being unable to clear away all doubts and fears when he is able to speak for himself again. There was a moment's pause, and Elizabeth continued: I must not stay now. Mr. Darcy is so impatient to be off, but I will be back to you. Will you tell me what I may say? so little will suffice; or would you rather write it? Mary shook her head, still keeping her face hidden, and said in a barely audible voice: Ask Mr. Darcy, if he will be so kind—explain things to him how you like—but say I send Colonel Fitzwilliam my— my love; that I beg his forgiveness; and that I hope—he will soon— be able to come home—to me. Elizabeth just caught the last words, waited to assure herself there was no more, and pressing Mary's hand, went quietly out of the room. Though much moved by their interview, the exigencies of the moment demanded that she should quickly recover her composure, and brace herself for the parting with her husband. There would be time—all too much time—for thought when the moment of action was over; there would be hours of suspense to be borne and another sufferer to console. As she came out upon the gallery, she heard persons talking and moving in the hall below, and
- 72. distinguished her husband'svoice saying: I ought to be with him soon after one o'clock, words which revived her courage, and she descended to find Darcy, Georgiana and Mr. Bertram standing by the hearth, Darcy completely equipped for his journey, and the servants waiting by the front door. Georgiana, who had been enduring keen anxiety during Elizabeth's absence, and had been exerting herself to keep the gentlemen occupied in eating and talking, so that Elizabeth might not be interrupted too soon by Darcy's haste to depart, gave her a nervous glance, which was tempered by relief when she saw her sister draw Darcy into the library for a few parting words. She could scarcely attend to Mr. Bertram's amiable chatter, or reply to his inquiries for Mr. and Mrs. Bingley, and the other friends he had met on his previous visit, for picturing in her mind what was going on in the library and trying to decide whether Elizabeth had been successful in her mission. At last the door opened; they reappeared; Darcy was grave, but Georgiana thought his brow had somewhat lightened since he went in, and Elizabeth gave her a bright and reassuring look. There was no time for more, and the carriage was already waiting; the farewells were quickly spoken, and in another moment Darcy had passed out and was gone. Chapter XXV To Elizabeth and Georgiana, the events of the evening seemed like a dreadful dream. Less than an hour ago they had been sitting at their occupations, as tranquil and secure as if disaster did not exist; and now the bolt had fallen, scattering them and bringing to each its message of terror and dismay. Georgiana felt as if it would be the hardest matter in the world to settle to any pretence of the ordinary life again, until news reached them from her brother; she longed to
- 73. be able tobe alone, to think it all over quietly, or to go to Elizabeth, to hear the result of her appeal to Miss Crawford, and instead she was obliged to establish herself in the drawing-room with Mr. Bertram, who showed no sign of wishing to go to bed, but was evidently prepared to sit up talking and drinking tea until midnight. Georgiana took out her embroidery frame, and prepared to be as agreeable a listener as she could, for she expected Elizabeth, who had gone to Miss Crawford, would come back at any minute, and she really felt more than a common measure of gratitude to Mr. Bertram for the service he had rendered them. This gratitude she again endeavoured to express, when Mr. Bertram began discussing the heavy state of the roads, and the consequent delays to which Darcy might be subjected. Pray do not name it, Miss Darcy; as I said, I am only too glad to have been of the slightest assistance. It was a mere chance that I was there, for I should have returned home this week, but the open weather tempted me to stay on for a day or two longer. It was indeed fortunate for us, for we should have had no information until to-morrow, if we had had to wait for a letter. Tom Bertram repeated that he was very glad, looking into the fire in an absent-minded way that Georgiana scarcely noticed, so absorbed was she in her thoughts. She paid but little more attention when he suddenly rose, stationed himself with his back to the fire, and a little nearer her, and began to speak, apparently on the same topic, for in the first few minutes she could only gather an impression of his sharing in the events following the accident; his telling Mr. Ashley that he was a friend of Colonel Fitzwilliam's, and knew all his relatives, and would be the fittest person to bear the news to them; of Mr. Ashley's heartily agreeing, and of his haste to get home and order his carriage and start. The narrative went on, Georgiana hearing very little after Leicestershire was left behind, for her thoughts had lingered with the poor sufferer there, when, with a start, she became aware that all this was directed at her, that Mr. Bertram was trying to explain that he had welcomed the opportunity
- 74. of hurrying toPemberley, because it would doing her and her family a service, than which he could have no greater satisfaction, and because it would afford him the privilege of being in her presence once more. Georgiana, amazed and horrified, endeavoured to stop him; but Tom was not to be prevented from making a speech which he had been rehearsing for at least four hours on his journey. Some words which fell from her lips, an appeal to have some respect for this sad occasion, which she had snatched at as the argument most likely to move him, were of no avail. That he could address her at such a time he immediately pointed out to be a proof of his ardour, which merited pardon by reason of its unquenchable nature, for he had intended, he explained, to wait until he came to Desborough at the end of the month, and then to have sought an interview, but his impatience to throw himself at her feet and declare his passion would brook no delay. Nothing could have been more distasteful to Georgiana than such sentiments. To hear the words admiration and devotion uttered by Mr. Bertram was not only an outrage upon the present hour, occupied as it was with the gravest solicitude for the life of a friend, but also upon the past, when similar words had been spoken to her by William Price. From no one else could she bear to hear them; coming from his cousin, she could almost have called them an insult. Of course, he could not know that, but it almost seemed like trading upon having placed them under an obligation to him, that he should presume to speak in a manner so repugnant to her. Too vexed to choose her words, when Mr. Bertram stopped for breath, having brought his peroration to a close by an offer in correct form of his hand and heart, she replied coldly that she was much honoured by his proposals, but it was entirely out of her power to accept them. Bertram had not expected a favourable reply on the instant, but he had hardly expected so decisive an unfavorable one. He stepped forward with outstretched hands, and an eager, But, Miss Darcy— to which her only response was to move haughtily away, and at that moment, to the relief of the lady and the chagrin of the gentleman, Elizabeth entered the room. Only the good manners habitual to both
- 75. could have helpedthem to carry off the situation. Tom Bertram, checked in one of his flights of eloquence, descended to earth again with an observation on the weather, and for the next few minutes the temperature and the prospects of rain were debated with great earnestness. Elizabeth could hardly have failed to guess what kind of interview she had interrupted, and out of compassion to Georgiana she soon recommended her to go to bed. The young girl needed no second bidding; Bertram opened the door to her with great ceremony, which was acknowledged by the slightest of bows, and she gladly sought the shelter of her room, astonished to find that it was not more than half-past nine o'clock. Could it be possible that it was barely two hours since Mr. Bertram's arrival? Would this interminable evening, with its shocks, surprises and disturbances, and yet more surprises, ever draw to a close? Georgiana was so unnerved that she sat down and shed a few tears, but a few only, for with such a real grief ever present, she could not spare much consideration for Mr. Bertram's unwelcome attack. It had been bewildering and annoying, but she was not going to worry about it. He had acted on some silly impulse, and could not possibly be serious. He scarcely knew her—a week's acquaintance, and he talked of heartfelt devotion, and expected her to be ready to listen to such nonsense! She could not conceive what had actuated him, and resented greatly that merely because he was heir to a title and fortune, and had ridden forty-five miles in a great hurry, he should suppose himself to be an acceptable suitor. Some expressions he had used, showing that he was confident of having the approval of her family, roused her special indignation. If only she had not so unluckily been alone with him—if Mrs. Grant had not gone upstairs! Mrs. Grant! Georgiana started violently, for until that moment she had completely forgotten the association of Mr. Bertram with their two guests. She had supposed Mary's agitation to be caused merely by the news of Colonel Fitzwilliam, and now perceived that the sight of the messenger must have been painful enough apart from all else. What miserable complications had resulted from the fact that it
- 76. should have beenTom Bertram, of all their acquaintance, who had happened to be hunting with the Belvoir hounds that day! But she could not wish his deed of kindness undone, nor she believed could Miss Crawford, or anyone else, whatever the present inconvenience to themselves, for everything was unimportant compared with what his coming had effected; and now, it would not matter if only he would go away again immediately. Georgiana sat meditating schemes by which she, Mary and Mrs. Grant might all avoid seeing him again, when a knock at her door was followed by the entrance of Elizabeth. Yes, Georgiana, Elizabeth said, smiling in response to the girl's shy glance, Mr. Bertram has made me his confidante. I am sorry if you were upset, my dear; he seems to be afraid it was something of a surprise to you, but he hopes you will take time, and do him the honour of thinking it over. Oh, no, no, Elizabeth, Georgiana burst out, her cheeks crimsoning, I do not want time—I shall not think it over. I do not care for Mr. Bertram in the least, and I never shall. Please tell him to go away and forget all about it. Why, my dear, this is very determined. He began in the wrong way, I think, and certainly at the wrong time, but he is very anxious to be allowed to come back, and set about his wooing more gradually. I told him I thought you were quite unaware of his feelings. So I was, but I do not want to hear about them, said Georgiana, more quietly, for she was beginning to be a little ashamed of her anger. I am very much obliged to Mr. Bertram—I know it is very kind of him, and everything, but I cannot possibly marry him. Are you sure it is entirely out of the question? asked Elizabeth. You were a little startled, perhaps. It is true, we have not seen much of him, but he is very agreeable, and his position is unexceptionable. Above all, he bears a high character as far as we know, and has a good heart, as his action of to-day proves. His cousin, Mr. Price, spoke very warmly of him. Unless you are quite
- 77. certain, I thinkyour brother would like you to give the matter due consideration, as at any other time than this you might feel more in a mood for such subjects. Pray, pray, Elizabeth, exclaimed Georgiana, nervously, do not ask me. Even if we were not in trouble to-day, as we are, it would make no difference. I am sure Mr. Bertram is excellent and amiable, but I do not—I cannot—I hope Fitzwilliam will not be angry, but I dislike the idea so very much. If that is so, my dear Georgiana, you shall not be tormented about it any more. I do not know if I am glad or sorry, it has all happened so quickly, but it is right that you should judge for yourself. Mr. Bertram will be greatly disappointed, still, that cannot be helped. I suppose I am to be deputed to get rid of the poor man. If you would be so very kind, Elizabeth. Well, I must break it to him early to-morrow morning, since I really think we have had agitations enough for one evening. In any case, I should have had to ask him to cut his visit short, for from what I have heard, I do not think that Miss Crawford would care to see him again. No, no, indeed, that must be prevented if possible. And now, do tell me, for I have been longing for an opportunity to ask you, what was the result of your conversation, if I may be allowed to hear it? Elizabeth related briefly what had passed between them, and told how her husband could scarcely believe at first that Miss Crawford had yielded, and had voluntarily sent the message that he was asked to deliver, but on being convinced of her sincerity, he willingly promised that if his cousin's state permitted it, he would convey to him the words of hope and comfort, and would endeavour to make anything clear that Fitzwilliam might not be able to understand. Of course, we had so few minutes together, said Elizabeth, and your brother had not thought of it all for so long. He quite believed that all was over between them; he did not even know that she had owned to caring for him once. It was difficult for him to realize that
- 78. she always hadcared, though he did not need me to tell him what happiness it would be to poor Robert to know it, if he reached him in time. I am so glad, so very glad, cried Georgiana, the tears of joy standing in her eyes. It is as it should be. My brother will see it all plainly, when he thinks it over. Poor Miss Crawford! How she must have suffered! She did not realize it herself, I suppose, and that was why she would not meet him again. I do not quite understand how it all happened, but it does not signify now. If he lives, nothing need keep them apart, and at all events, he will have her message. Nothing will make me believe that it is too late for that. This naturally led them back to a discussion of the accident, the condition of the victim, and all the chances and possibilities of the case, which could not be gone over often enough. Elizabeth at last prepared to leave the room, as the hour was late, but struck by a passing recollection, she looked back from the door to say, with a smile: I must tell you, Georgiana, that your attitude has surprised me more than Mr. Bertram's. Lately, when you have been looking so pale and unlike yourself, it has occurred to me that there must be some person of whom you were thinking a great deal, with a disturbing effect; and I confess that when I interrupted you and Mr. Bertram this evening, it crossed my mind that he might be that person. Elizabeth! how could you think such a thing? exclaimed Georgiana, turning away, blushing and confused, and thankful that Elizabeth had not directly asked her whether any such person was in existence. Chapter XXVI
- 79. The disconsolate Mr.Bertram duly took his leave the following morning, having seen no one besides Mrs. Darcy and Mrs. Grant, but a brief interview with the former had convinced him of the futility of any second application to her sister-in-law. He was quite unable to account for his rebuff, and his vexation, combined with the awkwardness that he felt in Mrs. Grant's presence, made their party round the breakfast-table an exceedingly uncomfortable one. Tom Bertram was possessed of a great deal more conscience than Mr. Yates, and could never have used Miss Crawford's name as freely as that gentleman had done; moreover, he was quite conscious that his own family deserved a share of the blame for the esclandre, which was usually borne by the two chief culprits; consequently a meeting with any of the Crawfords was quite as unwelcome to him as to them, and he was greatly relieved when, after an exchange of formal civilities, he could betake himself to his carriage and give directions to be conveyed to Desborough Park. To be sure, he was antedating his visit there by ten or twelve days; but he knew that he would be welcomed by the hospitable Bingleys, and they would all be eager to hear the shocking news. The ladies at Pemberley passed the next few hours in the deepest anxiety and suspense. They tried to talk of other things, but they could think of little but the one subject. Georgiana would have forgotten Mr. Bertram as soon as he was out of the house, for she could not believe his regard for her to be very genuine, or his wound very deep, but that she so dreaded the disapprobation of her brother, when he should come to hear of what had happened. Even Elizabeth would not have been surprised if she had wished to accept him! It was mortifying in a way, though a relief in another, that no one ever supposed it was possible that Mr. Price could have cared for her! Darcy had promised to send off an express letter as early as he could, and a servant had gone to the neighbouring town to meet it, and so avoid delay. Dinner was just over, a meal which they could only make a pretence of eating, when the butler entered, and they saw that he had brought the longed-for dispatch. It was taken to
- 80. Mrs. Darcy, andshe lost not a moment in communicating its contents. The news was not what they had dreaded; indeed, the account was as good as could be expected; Darcy found his cousin's condition to be grave, but not hopeless, for Colonel Fitzwilliam had recovered consciousness before his arrival. He was not permitted to talk, but was able to understand what was said to him. The surgeon had enjoined perfect quiet, and though at present he could scarcely diagnose all the injuries, he believed that the head had escaped. The danger was not over, but the patient's good constitution would help him materially, and the fact that he was enduring severe pain was not considered to be an altogether unfavorable symptom. The report was, in general, an intense relief, though anxiety still prevailed, and deep compassion and concern must still possess those who listened. Still it was much to be thankful for; on reflection, it seemed to be the best they could have hoped. Georgiana remained with Mrs. Grant, talking it over, while Elizabeth drew Miss Crawford into her boudoir, and said: I know you will like to hear the rest of my husband's letter. It is meant for you only. He writes: 'As soon as I was allowed to speak to Fitzwilliam, and had ascertained that he was comfortable as he could be made, I told him what you desired me to say respecting Miss Crawford's presence in our house, and the confidence she made to you. It seemed to be a great surprise to him, and I feared would excite him too much; but when I repeated her message, in the exact words which you gave me, I could perceive an immediate effect on him for good. He seemed slow to believe it, and murmured a few syllables about its being too great a happiness; but, after about half an hour, he signed that he wished to speak to me again, and whispered: Send her my love: tell her that she has given me something to live for. He was not able to say more and soon after fell asleep; you must recollect that there is a great deal of fever, and consequent weakness. Still, he is decidedly not worse, and I am more than half inclined to think that the stimulus his mind has received may help towards his recovery. You know I am not given to conjecture, but he is surprisingly ready to do everything he is told, and anxious to think
- 81. himself better. IfI am right, the responsibility will be Miss Crawford's, and it is one which I think she will not be unwilling to bear. Pray give her my warmest regards, and tell her I hope the time is not far distant when we shall be happily reunited at Pemberley.' Such a letter could not all at once be realized, or recovered from. Mary Crawford tried to utter some words of thanks, but tears impeded her speech. Only when the joy burst upon her was she fully conscious of all the misery of the last few months; the light served to make the darkness more visible. Looking back upon the mists of pride, of resentfulness, and misunderstanding, from which she had emerged, it seemed almost incredible for a time that she had reached the clearer air, the sunshine of love and mutual comprehension. She longed to turn to her kind friend, to talk freely with her, over all that had seemed puzzling, and when, after a very few anxious days, better accounts from Leicestershire began to come in, and the gloom lifted, they could venture to let their minds dwell on hopeful possibilities once more. It was satisfactory that the whole situation was already known to the other members of their little party, and that Georgiana, as well as Mrs. Grant, could freely offer the affection and sympathy of a sister. Mrs. Darcy, said Mary one day, I am possessed with a curiosity to know which you think worst of me for—my keeping Colonel Fitzwilliam at arm's length while in London, or my confession of weakness the other day, after the bold assertions I made when you spoke to me during our walk? Indeed, I do not think ill of you for any of those things, returned Elizabeth; they seem to me to have been most natural; but what do I think was a little bit foolish, was your allowing Sir Walter Elliot to be so attentive that the world concluded you were engaged. Your friends ought to have warned you that it might deter persons you really esteemed from approaching you. I was afraid you were going to say something about that! exclaimed Miss Crawford, holding her hands to her ears in mock dismay. I quite expect that Colonel Fitzwilliam and I shall spend
- 82. some hours inviolent mutual recrimination when he arrives, and that will be one of our subjects. But, seriously, Mrs. Darcy, although I know now it was unpardonably foolish, I was not conscious then of the comments that were being made. Our friendship with the Elliots had quite another aspect for me, other possibilities connected with my brother—but that will not interest you. I tolerated Sir Walter Elliot, but I never liked him, and I never thought of him as having any serious intentions, until a good-natured friend, Mrs. Palmer, called to congratulate me on my supposed engagement. By the way, she told me that her mother, Mrs. Jennings, had meant to come by with her, but had been prevented; I did not know the worthy Mrs. Jennings then, but since I have met her I have felt thankful she was not present on that occasion; it would have been rather overwhelming. She must have been sorry to miss such an opportunity, said Elizabeth, with a smile. Yes, poor Mrs. Jennings! But congratulations on a thing that has not happened are rather difficult to receive at any time, are they not? From that moment, I do assure you, I got a horrid fright, and determined to change my attitude towards Sir Walter Elliot completely. I must have been partly successful, for it precipitated things to such an extent—at all events, the result was not agreeable. It really was a wretched time! and Colonel Fitzwilliam disappeared and no one knew where or why. Elizabeth had long realized that her cousin had not been the only sufferer in the past year, and she knew that Miss Crawford's lively manner of talking was often assumed to hide deeper emotions. She truly rejoiced that whatever fears and anxieties might have to be endured before the lovers met again, nothing could shake the foundations of their happiness. After about ten days, Darcy's letters made it clear that the danger was past, and steady, if slow, progress might be looked for. He was, of course, quite unable to visit, and Georgiana, who had written to Mrs. Wentworth to postpone her visit, consulted Elizabeth as to
- 83. whether it wouldbe better to abandon it altogether, but Elizabeth thought that it would be unnecessary to do so, and also a pity, for Georgiana's sake, and Darcy, on being applied to give his consent to her journeying to London with the escort of two servants, as had been originally proposed. The plan, therefore, was to stand. A date was arranged with Captain Wentworth, and on a cold windy evening of the second week in February, Mr. Darcy's carriage with Mr. Darcy's sister, drove up to the hotel in St. James's Street where her host was to meet her. The said carriage was to return through Leicestershire, for it was hoped, that, in the course of the next few days, Colonel Fitzwilliam might be well enough to be brought back in it to Pemberley. The inclement weather, solitude, and fatigue had sent Georgiana's spirits down to a low ebb as she looked out at the wet streets, and recalled her last visit to London, under such very different circumstances. It was impossible for her not to be thinking of William Price, and the occasion when they had been together there, and wondering if he was in town at that minute. She would have liked to know that he was, even though it was so utterly improbable that they should meet, since neither of them could know what the other's movements were. Such thoughts were bad companions for Georgiana, but the arrival of Captain Wentworth, kind and cheerful as ever, and with the heartiest of welcomes, did much to disperse the gloom, and he proved such an enlivening companion on the following day that when they reached Winchester in time for a late dinner, she did not feel as bad as if she had been travelling for so many hours. To see Mrs. Wentworth again was a keen pleasure. The letters they had exchanged formed the groundwork of a more intimate friendship, for despite Anne's seniority in years, their natures were thoroughly congenial, and within a few hours Georgiana felt completely at home in the charming little house not far from the Cathedral, which Captain Wentworth had purchased soon after his marriage.
- 84. She and herhostess were sitting together, the first day of her visit, exchanging inquiries after their mutual friends, and Georgiana was half hoping to hear some mention of William Price's name, as from what she had seen at Mrs. Hurst's dinner-party, she judged that the Wentworths knew him tolerably well. Yes—Mrs. Wentworth referred to that evening—said that she had seen Mrs. Hurst when last she was in town—Miss Darcy had heard more lately, probably—did she remember the young officer, Captain Price now, who had been present on that occasion? Georgiana could reply in quite her ordinary manner that she had frequently seen Mr. Price since, and told of his visits to Desborough and Pemberley. Mrs. Wentworth listened with interest. I am very glad you have seen something in him, for I am sure you must all have liked him, do you not? she said. But, now, what an odd creature he is, never to have mentioned it. To be sure, I have not seen him since, or he would probably have done so, but hearing from a friend that he was in England again, and knowing you had met, I wrote to ask him to come and spend a few days here during your visit. It was a great liberty, I know, dear Miss Darcy, but he is a first favourite with Captain Wentworth and me, and we thought it would have been pleasant for him to have come just now; young people always amuse each other. He has so little time on shore, and up to last week I believed he was still abroad. Georgiana's heart beat as if it would suffocate her, but she managed to return her friend's look, and say in a steady voice: Yes, it would have been very nice. Is Captain Price not able to come? No, most unfortunately not. I am very sorry, more so than ever now I know he has been to your part of the world. But he writes to say he fears he ought not to come—all sorts of regrets, and to tell Miss Darcy he is very sorry not to see her again. It is not at all clear why he cannot come, for he only repeats that he is sailing again some time next month, and thinks he had better stay in London, or go down to see his sister, until he goes.
- 85. Georgiana sat perfectlysilent, gazing into the fire. Even from Mrs. Wentworth's first words she had not expected that William Price was coming, but to feel that the opportunity had been within his reach, and he could not—her heart told her that it was would not—avail himself of it, was very hard to bear. He was right not to come, if he believed that the reason for his rejection still existed; Georgiana honoured him for that; but was there anything else? Had he changed his mind? Was he ceasing to care? Georgiana hardly knew, until that bitter moment, how much she had been pinning her hopes upon seeing him again some day; and she thought, with something like bitterness, that it had not been much use to picture him in London, and consequently somewhat nearer to her, when, as things stood, he was immeasurably far away, whether in London or in Derbyshire or on the North Sea. Her want of response passed unnoticed as Captain Wentworth entered the room, proposing to take the ladies out. His wife observed that she had been telling Miss Darcy of Captain Price's refusal of their invitation, and of their puzzle to account for it. Yes, it is a very ungallant thing, is it not, Miss Darcy? particularly when he has been told what an attraction we had for him. I thought he would have come, as he is so often up and down this road, between Southampton and London, but I suppose he has got some other irons in the fire. Georgiana was glad to be able to leave the room, passing off the subject with a smile and a vague expression of regret, but the tumult of her mind was so painfully great that it was some days before she could find anything like the quiet enjoyment in her surroundings which she had promised herself. All those feelings which she had striven to repress were rising up again with renewed force. She struggled with herself alone, for she could not bear to tell Mrs. Wentworth the whole story; it was different for Miss Crawford with Elizabeth, but in this case the best-intentioned friend could not disentangle the skein.
- 86. Not long afterher arrival she had the delight of hearing from Elizabeth that the engagement of Fitzwilliam and Mary was an accomplished fact. He was at home again, none the worse for the journey, and gaining strength rapidly under so many efficient nurses, which of course means one! wrote Elizabeth. Her pleasure was enhanced, a few days later, by receiving a letter from her cousin himself, the first he had been allowed to write, in which he spoke with gratitude of the happiness he had so nearly missed, and thanked Georgiana affectionately for her share in bringing it about. Indeed, he said, we owe to the kindness and patience of our friends a debt we can never repay. How cantankerous and troublesome you must have thought me when we were in London! and yet you bore with me, then and always, with unfailing sweetness. I can wish you nothing better, my dearest cousin, than to be as happy as I am, though I do not know who is fit, by fortune and merit, to deserve you. Mary wrote in much the same strain, and Georgiana could read their letters without a pang of selfish envy, with no feeling but that of rejoicing on her friends' behalf. This was heartily shared in by Mrs. Wentworth, who proved the most sympathetic of listeners, having seen the early stages of the affair at Bath, and knowing, from her own observation and by what she had collected from Mrs. Darcy's letter, more than Georgiana of the obstacles which had hindered its progress up to now; but both preferred to talk only of its happy conclusion, and of the strange and unexpected means by which it had been brought about. Chapter XXVII About five weeks after he had posted his letter to Mrs. Wentworth, William Price was walking along Wigmore Street, on his way to the Yates's house in Cavendish Square. It was a cold, foggy evening in
- 87. Welcome to ourwebsite – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com