Immigration, Urbanization, and American Cities

Chapter Opening

In the summer of 1903, a young woman named Pauline Newman arrived at Ellis Island in New York Harbor. She had traveled from a small town in what is now Lithuania, crossing the Atlantic Ocean in the steerage compartment of a steamship — the cheapest and most crowded section, where hundreds of migrants shared a dark, poorly ventilated space below the waterline. She was twelve years old, traveling with her mother and siblings, and she carried little more than a bundle of clothing and the address of a relative already settled on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Within days of her arrival, she was working in a garment factory, stitching shirtwaists for fourteen hours a day, six days a week, for wages that barely covered rent in a two-room tenement apartment she shared with eight other people. She would go on to become an organizer for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and a lifelong advocate for workers' rights. Her story — of immigration, labor, poverty, solidarity, and civic participation — was repeated millions of times across the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in forms that shaped the United States more profoundly than almost any other force of the era.

Between roughly 1880 and 1924, the United States received one of the largest waves of voluntary migration in world history. More than twenty million people crossed the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans to reach American shores. They came from southern and eastern Europe — Italy, Poland, Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Greece, Romania, the Balkans — in numbers that dwarfed the earlier waves of Irish, German, and Scandinavian immigrants. They came from China, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. They came from Mexico and Canada. They came from the Middle East and from India. They brought languages, religions, foodways, labor traditions, political ideas, and family structures that had no simple equivalent in the Anglo-Protestant culture that had dominated the United States since the colonial era. They arrived in a country undergoing rapid industrial transformation, and they became the labor force that built it.

The cities they entered were themselves being remade. In 1800, fewer than one in twenty Americans lived in a place that could be called a city. By 1920, more than half the population was urban. The United States had transformed from a predominantly rural, agricultural nation into a predominantly urban, industrial one — and immigration was both a cause and a consequence of that transformation. Immigrants filled the factories, dug the tunnels, built the bridges, laid the rail lines, staffed the sweatshops, operated the pushcarts, and crowded the tenements that defined American urban life at the turn of the twentieth century. Without their labor, the industrial economy that produced the wealth of the Gilded Age could not have functioned.

Yet the experience of immigration was never simply one of opportunity. It was also an experience of exclusion, exploitation, discrimination, cultural conflict, and legal restriction. Native-born Americans — themselves almost always the descendants of earlier immigrants — frequently viewed new arrivals with fear, contempt, or hostility. Nativist movements argued that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were racially inferior, culturally incompatible, politically dangerous, or economically threatening. Chinese immigrants faced outright exclusion through federal law. Japanese immigrants were barred from naturalization and citizenship. Mexican workers were welcomed for their labor and expelled when the economy contracted. The history of immigration in this era is not a simple story of welcome and assimilation, but a contested story about who belonged in America, who had the right to work, who could become a citizen, and who could call the country home.

The cities immigrants helped build were extraordinary achievements and scenes of severe inequality at the same time. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and dozens of other cities grew at astonishing speed, becoming centers of commerce, culture, politics, and social conflict. Architects designed skyscrapers that redefined the urban skyline. Engineers built elevated railways, subways, water systems, and sanitation networks. Political machines organized immigrant neighborhoods and delivered services in exchange for votes, creating forms of urban democracy that were simultaneously corrupt and inclusive. Reformers, social workers, journalists, and public health officials struggled to address poverty, disease, overcrowding, and exploitation in the teeming immigrant districts. Settlement houses became laboratories for social reform. Investigative journalists exposed unsafe food, dangerous tenements, and exploitative labor conditions. City governments debated how to provide parks, schools, libraries, and public health infrastructure to populations that had doubled or tripled within a generation.

This chapter examines immigration and urban growth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It asks how millions of people from different parts of the world came to live in American cities, what their lives were like, how they built communities, how they were treated by the society around them, and how their presence transformed the United States. It also examines the political and cultural conflicts that immigration produced — the rise of nativism, the passage of exclusion laws, the debates over assimilation and cultural identity — and asks why Americans so consistently struggled to reconcile their ideals about immigration with the reality of their responses to newcomers.

Learning Objectives

Guiding Historical Questions

Historical Context

The great wave of immigration that transformed the United States between 1880 and 1924 did not occur in isolation. It was the product of simultaneous and interconnected changes in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the United States itself. Understanding why so many people came, and why they came when they did, requires looking both at the forces that pushed people out of their home countries and the forces that pulled them toward the United States.

In Europe, the late nineteenth century was a period of deep economic and social disruption. Agricultural economies across southern and eastern Europe were being destabilized by rising population, falling food prices caused by competition from American and Russian grain, declining availability of land, and the breakdown of traditional village economies under the pressure of early industrialization. In southern Italy, peasants who had farmed small plots for generations found themselves unable to survive on the declining returns from their land. In Russia and eastern Europe, Jews faced severe legal discrimination, restrictions on where they could live and work, and periodic waves of violent persecution known as pogroms. In Poland — partitioned among Russia, Prussia, and Austria — political repression combined with economic hardship to make emigration attractive. Across a vast swath of the European continent, young men and women were calculating that their chances were better elsewhere than at home.

The forces pulling immigrants toward the United States were equally powerful. American industries — steel, coal, textiles, meatpacking, garment manufacturing, construction, railroads — were expanding at enormous speed and required vast amounts of cheap labor. American employers actively recruited workers from Europe, sometimes sending agents to recruiting districts to promise wages and conditions that, while harsh by any comfortable standard, were genuinely better than what was available at home. Letters from immigrants who had already settled — passed through villages and read aloud in taverns and churches — spread word of the possibilities across the Atlantic. Steamship companies, which profited from carrying steerage passengers, advertised actively in European markets and made the voyage cheaper and more accessible than it had been for earlier generations.

The situation for Asian immigrants was dramatically different. Chinese workers had come to California in large numbers beginning with the Gold Rush of 1849 and had provided essential labor for the construction of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s. But as the railroad was completed and the economy contracted in the 1870s, white workers attacked Chinese communities, lobbied for legal exclusion, and drove Chinese workers from mines, fishing grounds, and skilled trades. The result was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the first and most sweeping racial restriction on immigration in American history.

American cities were already growing rapidly before the great wave of immigration arrived. But the scale and speed of urban growth in the final decades of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth was unprecedented. New York City grew from roughly one million people in 1860 to nearly seven million by 1910. Chicago, which barely existed in 1840, had nearly two million residents by 1900. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Boston, Philadelphia — all grew at rates that challenged every existing system of housing, sanitation, transportation, governance, and public order. The cities were building as fast as they could, but the infrastructure always lagged behind the population.

Chronology Preview

Major People, Groups, and Places

Core Vocabulary Preview

The following key terms appear throughout this chapter. Students should understand each term before proceeding to the main sections.

Immigration and Urban Growth

Few developments shaped the United States more completely between 1880 and 1920 than the simultaneous arrival of millions of immigrants and the explosive growth of American cities. These two forces were not separate phenomena happening to coincide in the same decades. They were deeply interconnected: immigrants came because industrial cities needed workers, and cities grew because immigrants arrived to fill factories, construction sites, service industries, and neighborhoods. Together, immigration and urbanization transformed the United States from a predominantly rural, agrarian nation into a predominantly urban, industrial one within the span of a single generation.

The scale of the transformation was staggering. In 1880, the United States had a population of approximately fifty million people, most of them living in rural areas or small towns. By 1920, the population had nearly doubled to more than one hundred million, and for the first time in the nation's history, more Americans lived in urban areas than in rural ones. Fourteen American cities had populations of more than 300,000 people. New York City, with nearly seven million residents, was one of the largest cities in the world. Chicago, which had barely 30,000 residents in 1850, had 2.7 million by 1920. The physical geography of the United States had not changed, but the human geography had been remade almost beyond recognition.

The causes of urban growth were multiple and mutually reinforcing. Industrial capitalism required concentration — factories needed to be near sources of power, transportation, raw materials, and markets, and workers needed to be near factories. The railroad network built in the decades after the Civil War made it possible to move coal, iron ore, grain, and manufactured goods across continental distances at relatively low cost, and the rail hubs around which this movement organized — Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, St. Louis — became the sites of enormous industrial complexes. The telegraph and later the telephone made it possible to coordinate business activity across large distances. Electricity provided new forms of power that made large-scale manufacturing more efficient and also enabled the construction of elevators, electric streetcars, and other technologies that allowed cities to grow both taller and more spatially dispersed at the same time.

But industrialization alone does not explain the specific character of American urban growth in this era. What made American cities distinct — and distinctly challenging to govern, house, and manage — was the simultaneous arrival of millions of immigrants who came with very little capital, who took the lowest-paying and most dangerous jobs, and who crowded into housing that was inadequate for the numbers it was asked to hold. The immigrant city was not only an industrial city; it was a polyglot city, a city of dozens of languages, hundreds of cultural practices, competing religious institutions, and volatile political loyalties. Managing this complexity taxed every institution of urban government and produced conflicts that reshaped American democracy.

The relationship between immigration and urban growth was not passive or accidental. American employers actively sought immigrant labor and built systems for recruiting, transporting, and managing it. Steamship companies partnered with labor agents in Europe to fill their steerage compartments and profit from the passage. Railroad companies recruited workers from specific European regions, sometimes creating ethnic enclaves in particular industries and locations. Factory owners preferred immigrant workers in part because they were less likely to be members of established trade unions, more willing to accept lower wages in the immediate term, and in a weaker legal and political position to resist exploitation. The industrial economy and the immigrant labor supply reinforced each other in a relationship that was profitable for employers and genuinely life-improving for many workers even while it remained exploitative and dangerous by almost any objective standard.

The cities that immigrants entered were themselves in the midst of intense physical transformation. The decades between 1880 and 1920 saw the construction of some of the most ambitious infrastructure in human history: the Brooklyn Bridge (completed 1883), the Chicago elevated railway system, the New York City subway (opened 1904), the skyscrapers of the Loop and Lower Manhattan, the water systems and sewage treatment plants that made large urban populations survivable. Engineers, architects, city planners, and public health officials were inventing the modern city in real time, often barely ahead of the populations that required their work. The gap between what cities needed and what they had was the space in which urban poverty, disease, political corruption, and reform conflict all occurred.

New Immigration from Europe

The immigrants who arrived in the United States between roughly 1880 and 1924 came from places that had contributed relatively few migrants in earlier decades. Historians often call this the era of the "new immigration" to distinguish it from the "old immigration" of the antebellum and immediate postwar decades, which had come predominantly from Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia. The new immigrants came primarily from southern and eastern Europe: from Italy (especially the south and Sicily), from the Russian Empire (including its large Jewish population concentrated in the Pale of Settlement), from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (including Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenians, and Ukrainians), from Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Portugal, and from the Middle East (particularly Syria and Lebanon). The differences in national origin translated into differences in language, religion, cultural practice, and social organization that had profound consequences for how the new immigrants settled, organized, and were perceived.

Italian immigration exemplifies the "new immigration" in many of its key dimensions. Italian immigrants — the largest single national group in the new immigration — came overwhelmingly from the Mezzogiorno, the impoverished agricultural south of Italy and the island of Sicily. They were overwhelmingly Catholic, largely illiterate in Italian (and entirely unfamiliar with English), and experienced in agricultural labor rather than industrial work. Many came not with the intention of permanent settlement but with a strategy of temporary migration: work in the United States for several years, save money, and return to Italy to buy land or support a family. This "birds of passage" pattern meant that a significant portion of Italian immigrants — perhaps a third or more — did indeed return to Italy, making the Italian immigration experience genuinely transnational in character. Those who stayed built communities that were simultaneously deeply Italian and genuinely American.

Italian immigrants found work in a remarkably wide range of industries. In New York, they were heavily represented in construction — building the subways, bridges, tenements, and office buildings that the city's growth required. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, they worked in coal mines. In California, they farmed and fished. In Chicago, they worked in packinghouses and steel mills. The padrone system — in which Italian-speaking labor contractors recruited, transported, and managed workers, taking a fee from their wages — was widespread in the early decades of Italian immigration, though it declined as immigrant communities became better established and workers developed independent labor organizations.

Jewish immigration from Russia and eastern Europe was different in its causes, its character, and its long-term consequences. Eastern European Jews did not come primarily for economic opportunity, though that was a factor; they came primarily as refugees from persecution. Anti-Jewish violence had a long history in eastern Europe, but it intensified dramatically in the 1880s after a wave of pogroms swept through Russia following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. Russian authorities blamed Jews for social unrest and imposed increasingly severe legal restrictions: Jews were confined to the Pale of Settlement, barred from most professions and educational institutions, and subjected to quotas and discriminatory taxation. Pogroms recurred in waves — in 1881–1884, in 1903–1906, and again during the upheavals of World War I and the Russian Civil War. Each wave pushed more Jews toward emigration.

Unlike Italian immigrants, Jewish immigrants came predominantly with the intention of permanent settlement. They came in family units more often than as single young men. Many were skilled craftsmen — tailors, cobblers, carpenters, watchmakers — who brought expertise directly applicable to urban industrial labor. The garment industry in particular, centered in New York City, became both the economic anchor and the labor battleground of the eastern European Jewish immigrant community. Jewish immigrants also brought traditions of literacy, religious learning, and community organization that translated quickly into a rich institutional life: synagogues, Yiddish-language newspapers, labor unions, political clubs, literary societies, mutual aid organizations, and schools. The Forward (Forverts), a Yiddish-language socialist newspaper founded in 1897, became one of the most widely read newspapers in the United States, with a circulation of more than 200,000 at its peak.

Polish immigration, Slovak immigration, Croatian immigration, Greek immigration — each national group had its own specific pattern of causes, destinations, labor niches, community institutions, and relations with other groups. Poles came in large numbers to work in steel, coal, and meatpacking in industrial cities like Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Buffalo, and built dense communities organized around Catholic parish churches, which served simultaneously as religious institutions, social centers, schools, and markers of national identity in a foreign country. Greeks concentrated in certain service trades — restaurants, candy stores, shoeshine parlors — and developed tight commercial networks. Slovaks worked in Pennsylvania's steel mills and coal mines, building communities so dense that entire neighborhoods were organized by village of origin in Slovakia. The "new immigration" was not a single movement but a collection of parallel movements, each shaped by specific conditions in the sending country and in the particular American industries and communities where immigrants landed.

Chinese Immigration and Exclusion

The history of Chinese immigration to the United States is inseparable from the history of racial exclusion — the deliberate use of federal law to bar an entire national group from entering and from becoming citizens. Understanding this history requires understanding both why Chinese immigrants came, what they contributed, and why the response to their presence took the extreme form of permanent legal exclusion.

Chinese immigrants had been coming to California since the Gold Rush of 1848–1849. Early arrivals came from Guangdong Province in southern China, drawn by the economic opportunities of the gold fields and the labor demands of a rapidly developing Pacific Coast economy. When the gold rush subsided, Chinese workers shifted to other forms of labor: building levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, mining deeper deposits of gold and silver, fishing, operating laundries and restaurants, and — most significantly — providing the labor force for the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad, the western half of the transcontinental railroad completed in 1869. Approximately 12,000 to 20,000 Chinese workers, constituting the majority of the Central Pacific's labor force, laid track across the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Nevada desert under extraordinarily dangerous conditions. They were paid less than their white counterparts, housed in segregated camps, and provided with no safety equipment for the blasting work that cost many their lives. Their contribution to one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in American history was immense, and it was immediately and systematically erased from public memory.

As California's economy contracted in the 1870s, Chinese workers became targets of organized white working-class hostility. The argument was economic: Chinese workers, it was claimed, accepted lower wages and worse conditions than white workers, and therefore undercut white labor and drove down the general wage level. This argument contained a partial truth embedded in a larger distortion. Chinese workers did accept lower wages — but not because they had lower expectations or were inherently willing to be exploited; they accepted lower wages because they were legally barred from many occupations, excluded from most labor unions, and threatened with violence if they competed too directly with white workers. The conditions that produced Chinese wage competition were themselves the product of discrimination, not its cause.

Denis Kearney, an Irish immigrant who had become a prominent labor organizer in San Francisco, built the Workingmen's Party of California in the 1870s on a platform that combined genuine concerns about economic inequality and corporate power with virulent anti-Chinese racism. The party's slogan — "The Chinese must go" — captured a political climate in which demanding the exclusion of Chinese workers had become a mainstream position in California politics. By the late 1870s, anti-Chinese agitation had produced local ordinances restricting where Chinese residents could live, work, and conduct business. Violence against Chinese communities was common: Chinese neighborhoods were attacked, Chinese workers were driven from mines and fishing grounds, and in some cases entire Chinese communities were forced out of western towns through mob violence.

The pressure from California translated into federal action. The Chinese Exclusion Act, signed by President Chester Arthur in 1882, was a watershed in American immigration history. It prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the United States for ten years (a period later extended and eventually made permanent until 1943). It also prohibited Chinese immigrants already in the country from becoming naturalized citizens — a restriction that had no equivalent for any European immigrant group. Chinese people could not vote, could not own land in many states, and lived under a legal regime that denied them the most basic attributes of belonging.

The exclusion act did not end Chinese immigration entirely, but it changed its character dramatically. Some Chinese immigrants sought to enter by claiming exemption status — asserting that they were merchants or students rather than laborers. Others entered illegally, often through Canada or Mexico. Still others used a legal fiction known as "paper sons": following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed most immigration records, Chinese men could claim American-born parentage (and thus birthright citizenship) that could not be easily disproven, and they could bring relatives under these fictitious family identities. The paper son system created complex family histories of invented and real relationships that persisted across generations.

The Exclusion Act also set a precedent for the use of federal immigration law as an instrument of racial exclusion. The 1882 act was followed by a series of extensions and expansions: the Scott Act of 1888, the Geary Act of 1892 (which required all Chinese residents to register and carry identity papers at all times), and eventually a complete bar on Chinese immigration made permanent in 1902. The racial logic embedded in Chinese exclusion — the argument that certain groups were biologically or culturally incompatible with American democracy — would become the template for later immigration restrictions targeting other groups.

Ellis Island and Angel Island

For most European immigrants arriving in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the first encounter with American officialdom occurred at Ellis Island, the federal immigration processing station that opened in New York Harbor in 1892. Ellis Island was built to impose order on what had been a chaotic and corruption-prone system in which immigrants were processed at the pier by state immigration officials of varying competence and integrity. The new federal station centralized immigration processing, subjected arrivals to medical inspection, checked documentation, and began the process of determining who would be admitted and who would be turned away.

The experience of arrival at Ellis Island was both daunting and, for most immigrants, ultimately successful. Ships from Europe docked at Manhattan or Brooklyn piers, where first- and second-class passengers were processed onboard (their wealth and respectability assumed to guarantee their admissibility) and steerage passengers were transferred by ferry to Ellis Island. The great hall of Ellis Island's main building — a large, echoing space that could hold thousands of people simultaneously — was divided by metal railings into lanes that directed immigrants through the inspection process. Public health doctors examined immigrants as they walked past, using chalk to mark the coats of those who showed signs of physical or mental illness, infectious disease, or disability.

The questions at the legal inspection could be intimidating: Where are you going? Who is meeting you? How much money do you have? Do you have a job waiting? The last question was a trap: under the Contract Labor Law of 1885, immigrants who had been hired in advance by an American employer were legally barred. But immigrants who arrived without any employment prospects could also be denied entry as "likely to become a public charge." In practice, the vast majority of immigrants — approximately 98 percent — were admitted. But the two percent who were rejected, often after traveling weeks under terrible conditions and spending their life savings on passage, faced a devastating outcome.

Angel Island, the federal immigration station that operated in San Francisco Bay beginning in 1910, tells a very different story. While Ellis Island processed arrivals with relative speed and fairness for most European immigrants, Angel Island was designed primarily to enforce Chinese exclusion and to interrogate, detain, and often deport Asian immigrants. Where the average European immigrant spent a few hours at Ellis Island, Chinese immigrants at Angel Island could be detained for weeks, months, or even years while immigration officials investigated their claims to admission. The physical conditions at Angel Island were far worse than at Ellis Island: the detention barracks were overcrowded, poorly maintained, and essentially a prison. Immigrants were subject to intrusive physical examinations and endless rounds of questioning designed to find inconsistencies that would justify rejection.

Chinese immigrants at Angel Island responded to their imprisonment with poetry. Hundreds of poems were carved into the wooden walls of the detention barracks, written in classical Chinese verse forms, expressing grief, anger, homesickness, defiance, and determination. These poems — discovered in 1970 when the barracks were scheduled for demolition and saved by a park ranger who recognized their historical significance — are among the most remarkable primary sources of the immigration experience.

Japanese immigrants faced a different but related set of legal obstacles. The Gentleman's Agreement of 1907–1908 was a diplomatic arrangement between the United States and Japan in which the Japanese government agreed to limit the emigration of laborers to the United States in exchange for the United States government agreeing not to pass explicitly anti-Japanese immigration laws. The arrangement allowed Japanese women to continue immigrating as wives of men already in the United States, which led to the practice of "picture brides" — marriages arranged through the exchange of photographs, after which women emigrated to join husbands they had never met. The 1924 Immigration Act effectively ended Japanese immigration by barring all immigration from the "Asiatic barred zone."

Ethnic Neighborhoods and Community Institutions

One of the most important facts about the era of mass immigration is that immigrants did not arrive as isolated individuals and scatter randomly across the American landscape. They arrived as members of networks — family networks, village networks, regional networks, religious networks — and they used those networks to concentrate in specific neighborhoods in specific cities, creating ethnic enclaves that were simultaneously communities of survival, centers of cultural life, and foundations for political participation. The ethnic neighborhood was not a sign of immigrants' failure to assimilate; it was an adaptive strategy that made survival in a hostile and unfamiliar environment possible.

The Lower East Side of Manhattan was perhaps the most famous immigrant neighborhood in American history, and it deserves examination in detail because it illustrates the institutional complexity of immigrant community life so completely. By 1900, the Lower East Side was one of the most densely populated places on earth, home to hundreds of thousands of eastern European Jewish immigrants crowded into a few square miles of narrow streets and multi-story tenement buildings. The physical conditions were crowded and often unsanitary, but the institutional life of the neighborhood was extraordinarily rich. There were hundreds of synagogues — not grand Reform temples but small Orthodox prayer houses (shtibls) organized by the immigrants' town or village of origin. There were Yiddish theaters offering entertainment ranging from melodrama to serious political drama. There were cafes and restaurants. There were labor union halls and political clubs. There were schools, both religious (yeshivot) and secular. There were newspapers. There were libraries. There were settlement houses. And there were the pushcarts that filled Hester Street and Orchard Street with food, clothing, and household goods, creating an informal economy that served both buyers and sellers who had little capital and no access to formal retail establishments.

The mutual aid society — a voluntary organization that members funded through regular dues and that provided benefits during illness, injury, or death — was one of the most important institutions of immigrant community life. Mutual aid societies took many forms: the Italian American società di mutuo soccorso, typically organized around a specific hometown or region in Italy; the Jewish landsmanshaft, organized around the town of origin in eastern Europe; the Polish fraternal benefit society, often linked to the Catholic Church; the Chinese tong, a form of mutual aid and commercial organization. Whatever their form, mutual aid societies served a population that had no access to government social services — no unemployment insurance, no workers' compensation, no public pension — and provided a basic social safety net through collective self-help.

The ethnic newspaper was another institution of central importance. By 1910, there were more than one thousand foreign-language newspapers published in the United States, in dozens of languages. These newspapers served multiple functions simultaneously: they provided immigrants with news from the old country and from the new, they helped immigrants navigate American institutions, they maintained cultural and linguistic connection for communities separated from their homelands, and they created a public sphere within immigrant communities where debates about labor, politics, culture, and community life could take place in a language that everyone could understand.

Religious institutions — Catholic parishes, Orthodox synagogues, Lutheran churches, Greek Orthodox churches, Buddhist temples — organized immigrant communities in ways that went far beyond the purely spiritual. In Italian and Polish communities, the Catholic parish was often the central social institution of the neighborhood: it provided schooling, organized social events, maintained the records of births, marriages, and deaths, and created a sense of bounded community within the anonymous city. Because the institutional Catholic Church in the United States was dominated by Irish American clergy, Italian and Polish immigrants frequently found themselves in conflict with church authorities over language, practice, and cultural autonomy. These conflicts sometimes led to the establishment of independent or "national" parishes that preserved the language and traditions of specific immigrant communities.

Tenements, Public Health, and Urban Poverty

The physical conditions in which most urban immigrants lived in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were, by any standard, severe. The tenement — the multi-story, multi-unit apartment building that was the standard housing form of the immigrant city — was typically crowded, poorly built, inadequately ventilated, without running water or indoor plumbing, and plagued by fire hazards, vermin, and infectious disease.

The dumbbell tenement, so named because of the pinched central section visible from above that created the minimal airshaft required by New York City's Tenement House Act of 1879, became the characteristic housing form of the Lower East Side and similar immigrant districts. A standard dumbbell tenement was five to seven stories tall, on a lot twenty-five feet wide and ninety feet deep, and contained twenty to thirty apartments. The apartments were typically two or three rooms: a front room facing the street, a middle room with no window at all (lit by gas lamp even in the day), and a kitchen. A family of five or six persons in such an apartment was not unusual; apartments were frequently subdivided further, or rented out to boarders, to stretch the income that covered rent. Toilets — when they existed at all — were typically in the back yard or in the basement, shared by multiple families. Running water, when available, came from a single tap per floor shared by all apartments on that floor.

The consequences for public health were severe and predictable. Tuberculosis — the "white plague" — was endemic in tenement districts, spread by the combination of overcrowding, poor ventilation, and the physical stress of long working hours on workers already weakened by malnutrition. In the worst years, tuberculosis killed more New Yorkers than any other disease. Cholera and typhoid, spread through contaminated water and inadequate sanitation, swept through immigrant neighborhoods in epidemic waves. Infant mortality rates in tenement districts were shockingly high: in some Lower East Side blocks in the 1890s, more than one in five children born alive died before reaching their first birthday, primarily from gastrointestinal infections caused by contaminated milk and unsanitary conditions.

The man who brought these conditions to the attention of middle-class Americans most effectively was Jacob Riis, a Danish immigrant who had himself experienced poverty on arriving in New York in the 1870s and who later became a journalist and photographer. His 1890 book How the Other Half Lives combined text with photographs — produced using the newly invented technology of flash photography, which allowed images to be taken in the dark interiors of tenements — to show readers who had never entered a tenement what life there looked like. Riis's work was genuinely important: it shocked comfortable readers into awareness, helped build political support for housing reform, and contributed to the passage of the Tenement House Act of 1901, which established minimum standards for light, ventilation, and plumbing in new construction.

But Riis's work also had significant limitations. His portrayal of immigrant communities, while sympathetic in many respects, was shot through with ethnic and racial stereotypes. His photographs, while documentary in intent, posed subjects and selected scenes in ways that emphasized degradation and passivity, often stripping their subjects of agency and dignity. Riis saw the immigrant poor primarily as objects of reform rather than as actors in their own history — a limitation that reformers of the settlement house tradition would try, with incomplete success, to overcome.

Public health reform in immigrant cities involved multiple actors and multiple strategies. City and state health departments established infant milk stations that provided clean milk to reduce infant mortality. Public baths were built to provide bathing facilities that tenements lacked. Visiting nurses went door to door in tenement districts, educating mothers about hygiene practices that could reduce infant and childhood disease. Garbage collection, sewer construction, and water filtration — the basic sanitary infrastructure of the modern city — were gradually extended to immigrant neighborhoods, though always more slowly and less adequately than to middle-class districts.

Political Machines and City Services

In the chaotic, rapidly growing immigrant cities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the political machine was a central institution of urban governance — and one of the most controversial. Political machines were urban organizations that maintained electoral power through an exchange relationship: they provided services, jobs, and favors to immigrant constituents in exchange for votes, and they used control of city government to distribute patronage that rewarded their supporters and sustained the organization. The most famous machine — New York City's Democratic organization known as Tammany Hall — has become synonymous in American memory with urban political corruption, but the history of machine politics is more complex than its reputation suggests.

For recent immigrants, the political machine provided services that no other institution offered and that government as formally constituted did not provide. When a recently arrived Italian family needed coal in winter and couldn't afford to pay for it, the ward boss could arrange delivery. When a Polish immigrant was arrested for selling from a pushcart without a license, the machine could intervene with the police or the courts. When a young Irish American wanted a job as a policeman, a fireman, or a city clerk, the machine could make it happen. When a Jewish family was being evicted by a landlord, the local precinct captain could talk to the landlord. These services were real. They came with an expectation of political loyalty, of votes delivered on election day. But they were also genuinely helpful to people who had no other recourse.

The machine also served as a mechanism for immigrant political incorporation. In a formal sense, naturalization and voting rights were available to European immigrants (though not to Chinese or other Asian immigrants barred from naturalization). But the formal mechanisms of American politics were not transparent or accessible to people who had arrived recently, spoke little English, and had no prior experience with American democratic institutions. The machine provided the informal infrastructure that connected immigrant residents to the formal political system: voter registration drives, election-day transportation, guidance on how to vote, and the sense of belonging to a political community that had tangible rewards.

Tammany Hall, the dominant machine in New York City for most of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, built its power precisely on the immigrant communities of lower Manhattan and later the outer boroughs. Boss Richard Croker, who ran Tammany from 1886 to 1902, understood that the Irish-dominated machine needed to adapt to the arrival of millions of Italians and eastern European Jews if it was to maintain its electoral coalition. The machine extended patronage, political recognition, and organizational inclusion to Italian and Jewish leaders — though always within limits that preserved Irish dominance of the highest offices. The result was a political organization that was genuinely multiethnic by the standards of the time while also being organized around ethnic hierarchies that mirrored those of the larger society.

Machine politics was also genuinely corrupt. Machines systematically extracted money from businesses, contractors, and saloons seeking city licenses, permits, and contracts. They manipulated elections through ballot-box stuffing, repeat voting, and the purchase of votes. They protected illegal enterprises — gambling, prostitution, illegal alcohol — in exchange for financial contributions. The Tweed Ring, the most notorious Tammany corruption case, stole tens of millions of dollars from New York City in the late 1860s and early 1870s through inflated contracts and fraudulent payments.

The conflict between machine politics and reform politics was also a conflict between different definitions of democratic participation and different visions of American governance. Machine politicians saw politics as a practical exchange of concrete benefits for votes — a vernacular democracy rooted in neighborhood relationships and mutual obligation. Reformers saw politics as a matter of civic virtue and public interest, in which educated, disinterested citizens made rational decisions based on policy analysis rather than personal advantage. The reformers were often right about the corruption; the machine politicians were often right about the needs of the poor. The tension between these two versions of democracy has persisted in American political life long after the particular machines of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era were reformed or broken.

Settlement Houses and Reform

The settlement house movement was one of the most important institutional innovations of the Progressive Era — a response to urban poverty, immigrant need, and middle-class women's search for meaningful public roles that created new forms of social knowledge and new approaches to social reform. Settlement houses were residential community centers established in poor urban neighborhoods, where educated volunteers and professionals actually lived and worked alongside — though never quite as part of — the immigrant communities they served. The movement was inspired by the example of Toynbee Hall in London, established in 1884, and it spread rapidly across the United States in the 1890s and early 1900s: by 1910, there were more than four hundred settlement houses in American cities.

Hull House, founded by Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr in Chicago's Near West Side in 1889, became the most famous and influential settlement house in the United States. The neighborhood surrounding Hull House was home to immigrants from Italy, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bohemia, and many other countries, many of them working in the nearby stockyards, garment factories, and manufacturing plants. Addams and her associates offered an extraordinary range of services: English-language classes, citizenship preparation, kindergartens for the children of working mothers, clubs for boys and girls, lectures and concerts, a labor museum, a cooperative kitchen, a gymnasium, a theater, and a library. They also conducted systematic social research, documented in the 1895 Hull House Maps and Papers, which mapped the nationalities, wages, and housing conditions of the neighborhood block by block and became a model for sociological investigation of urban poverty.

Jane Addams was a remarkable figure — one of the most important Americans of her generation. Born in 1860 in Cedarville, Illinois, educated at Rockford Female Seminary, and afflicted in her early adulthood with a sense of purposelessness she later described as a "snare of preparation" — the condition of educated women in a society that provided no adequate outlets for their talents — the settlement house movement offered both a purpose and a method. By living in immigrant neighborhoods, Addams believed, educated Americans could both serve those communities and learn from them, developing genuine understanding across the class and cultural divides that otherwise prevented any real social contact.

Hull House attracted an extraordinary community of women who went on to become major figures in American social reform. Florence Kelley, who lived at Hull House in the early 1890s, led investigations of sweatshop conditions in Chicago's garment industry and helped draft the Illinois Factory Act of 1893, which regulated working hours and conditions for women and children. She later became the general secretary of the National Consumers League and was one of the most effective labor reformers in American history. Julia Lathrop, another Hull House resident, became the first director of the U.S. Children's Bureau in 1912. Alice Hamilton pioneered the study of occupational disease and industrial toxicology. The settlement house was, among other things, a professional training ground for a generation of social reformers who largely lacked access to the formal institutional pathways through which men built professional careers.

The settlement house movement also had real limitations and contradictions. Addams and most settlement workers were genuinely committed to cross-cultural understanding and to the dignity of immigrant communities. But the relationship between the college-educated settlement worker and the immigrant community she served was inherently asymmetrical. Settlement workers brought assumptions about education, hygiene, family structure, and cultural practice that were rooted in middle-class Anglo-Protestant American norms, and their programs sometimes pressured immigrants to abandon cultural practices that carried deep significance for the communities in question. The Americanization programs that settlement houses often ran — English-language instruction, civics education, domestic science courses — were premised on the assumption that becoming American required setting aside being Italian or Polish or Jewish.

Addams herself was aware of these tensions and more thoughtful about them than most of her contemporaries. Her 1910 book Twenty Years at Hull House is a remarkable document of self-reflection, in which she acknowledges the ways in which settlement work could be paternalistic and the ways in which immigrants had much to teach the reformers who came to serve them. Her commitment to peace, her opposition to World War I, and her advocacy for civil liberties during the wartime suppression of dissent — positions that cost her enormous public support — reflected a consistent commitment to the proposition that democratic values applied to all people regardless of national origin.

Nativism and American Identity

The era of mass immigration was also an era of intense nativist reaction — the organized effort by established Americans to restrict, exclude, or deport immigrants on the grounds that they were racially inferior, culturally incompatible, religiously threatening, or politically dangerous. Nativism was not new in American history; it had appeared in the anti-Catholic, anti-Irish hostility of the 1840s and 1850s, and in the anti-Chinese agitation of the 1870s. But the scale and character of the new immigration produced a new wave of nativist thought and action that was more systematic, more explicitly racial, and more politically powerful than anything that had preceded it.

The nativist argument in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries drew on several sources. One was economic: nativists argued that immigrant workers undercut wages, took jobs from native-born Americans, and imported standards of living so low that they made genuine economic progress for American workers impossible. This argument had a partial basis in the dynamics of labor market competition, but it systematically ignored the extent to which immigration also created economic growth — expanding the consumer market, providing labor for industries that could not have grown without it, and contributing entrepreneurially to new sectors of the economy.

A second source was cultural and religious: nativists argued that immigrants from Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox, and non-Christian traditions were fundamentally incompatible with the Protestant values that had shaped American democratic institutions. The argument that American democracy was a product of Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture — an explicitly racial claim — had a long history in American political thought, and it was revived and systematized in the late nineteenth century by intellectuals like Madison Grant, whose 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race argued that immigration from southern and eastern Europe was destroying the "Nordic race" that had built American civilization. Grant's work was pseudoscientific — it drew on discredited racial theories that conflated nationality, culture, and biology — but it was enormously influential, shaping the thinking of politicians and policymakers who pushed for immigration restriction.

A third source was political: nativists argued that immigrants brought radical political ideologies — anarchism, socialism, syndicalism — that threatened American democratic institutions. This argument gained traction after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 by Leon Czolgosz, the American-born son of Polish immigrants who had briefly associated with anarchist circles, and again after the Red Scare of 1919–1920, when the federal government deported hundreds of radical immigrants in a panic over Bolshevism following the Russian Revolution.

The legislative expression of nativism moved through several stages. The Immigration Act of 1882 established the first general federal criteria for immigration exclusion, barring convicts, lunatics, idiots, and those "likely to become a public charge." The Immigration Restriction League, founded in Boston in 1894 by Henry Cabot Lodge and other Harvard-educated reformers, lobbied for the literacy test — a requirement that immigrants demonstrate the ability to read in some language — as a device that would disproportionately restrict immigration from the regions of Europe with the lowest literacy rates while being facially neutral with respect to race. Congress passed literacy test legislation repeatedly; it was vetoed by Presidents Cleveland, Taft, and Wilson before finally becoming law in 1917.

The Dillingham Commission, a joint congressional committee that studied immigration from 1907 to 1911 and issued a forty-one volume report, gave scientific-seeming authority to nativist arguments by embedding racial categorizations into its analysis of immigration patterns and concluding that recent immigration from southern and eastern Europe was fundamentally different from and inferior to earlier immigration. The commission's work was methodologically flawed, but its political effect was significant, providing the intellectual framework for the quota legislation that followed.

The culmination of the restriction movement was the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or the National Origins Act. The act established a system of numerical quotas based on the national origin of the existing American population — a system deliberately designed to favor northern and western European immigration while drastically restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe. Under the formula, immigration from Italy, Poland, Russia, and other major sending countries was cut by 80 to 90 percent from peak levels. The act also barred virtually all immigration from Asia by declaring persons "ineligible for citizenship" to be inadmissible. The system created by the 1924 act remained the basic framework of American immigration law until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Chapter Review and Immigration Map Study

Research or Library Extension