Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"[This book] looks at efforts of America's Democratic Party and Catholic leadership to use the service of immigrant volunteers in the U.S.-Mexican War as a weapon against nativism and anti-Catholicism\"--Jacket.

German-American women played many roles in the US women's rights movement from 1848 to 1890. This book focuses on three figures-Mathilde Wendt, Mathilde Franziska Anneke, and Clara Neymann-who were simultaneously included and excluded from the nativist women's rights movement. Accordingly, their roles and arguments differed from those of their American colleagues, such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Lucy Stone. Moreover, German-American feminists were confronted with the opposition to the women's rights movement in their ethnic community of German-Americans. As outsiders in the women's rights movement they became critics; as \"women of two countries\" they became translators of feminist and ethnic concerns between German- Americans and the US women's rights movement; and as messengers they could bridge the gap between American and German women in a transatlantic space. This book explores the relationship between ethnicity and gender and deepens our understanding of nineteenth-century transatlantic relationships.

German-American women played many roles in the US women's rights movement from 1848 to 1890. This book focuses on three figures-Mathilde Wendt, Mathilde Franziska Anneke, and Clara Neymann-who were simultaneously included and excluded from the nativist women's rights movement. Accordingly, their roles and arguments differed from those of their American colleagues, such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Lucy Stone. Moreover, German-American feminists were confronted with the opposition to the women's rights movement in their ethnic community of German-Americans. As outsiders in the women's rights movement they became critics; as \"women of two countries\" they became translators of feminist and ethnic concerns between German- Americans and the US women's rights movement; and as messengers they could bridge the gap between American and German women in a transatlantic space. This book explores the relationship between ethnicity and gender and deepens our understanding of nineteenth-century transatlantic relationships.

In Devotion to the Adopted Country , Tyler V.Johnson looks at the efforts of America's Democratic Party and Catholic leadership to use the service of immigrant volunteers in the U.S.-Mexican War as a weapon against nativism and anti-Catholicism.

In Devotion to the Adopted Country, Tyler V. Johnson looks at the efforts of America's Democratic Party and Catholic leadership to use the service of immigrant volunteers in the U.S.–Mexican War as a weapon against nativism and anti-Catholicism. Each chapter focuses on one of the five major events or issues that arose during the war, finishing with how the Catholic and immigrant community remembered the war during the nativist resurgence of the 1850s and in the outbreak of the Civil War. Johnson's book uncovers a new social aspect to military history by connecting the war to the larger social, political, and religious threads of antebellum history. Having grown used to the repeated attacks of nativists upon the fidelity and competency of the German and Irish immigrants flooding into the United States, Democratic and Catholic newspapers vigorously defended the adopted citizens they valued as constituents and congregants. These efforts frequently consisted of arguments extolling the American virtues of the recent arrivals, pointing to their hard work, love of liberty, and willingness to sacrifice for their adopted country. However, immigrants sometimes undermined this portrayal by prioritizing their ethnic and/or religious identities over their identities as new U.S. citizens. Even opportunities seemingly tailor-made for the defenders of Catholicism and the nation's adopted citizens could go awry. When the supposedly well-disciplined Irish volunteers from Savannah brawled with soldiers from another Georgia company on a Rio Grande steamboat, the fight threatened to confirm the worst stereotypes of the nation's new Irish citizens. In addition, although the Jesuits John McElroy and Anthony Rey gained admirers in the army and in the rest of the country for their untiring care for wounded and sick soldiers in northern Mexico, anti-Catholic activists denounced them for taking advantage of vulnerable young men to win converts for the Church. Using the letters and personal papers of soldiers, the diaries and correspondence of Fathers McElroy and Rey, Catholic and Democratic newspapers, and military records, Johnson illuminates the lives and actions of Catholic and immigrant volunteers and the debates over their participation in the war. Shedding light on this understudied and misunderstood facet of the war with Mexico, Devotion to the Adopted Country adds to the scholarship on immigration and religion in antebellum America, illustrating the contentious and controversial process by which immigrants and their supporters tried to carve out a place in U.S. society.

Expansive U.S. extraterritorial claims are nothing new. Such jurisdictional tactics date back to the early republic. This paper focuses on the commingling of extraterritorial and national questions in the U.S.-Ottoman relationship in the nineteenth century. It employs a socio-legal approach to determine how majoritarian and nativist biases—on both sides of the Atlantic—imbued everyday consular practices around extraterritoriality, nationality, and protection. Three primary catalysts advanced the debate. First, the Ottoman state repurposed emerging diplomatic norms in the 1850s to deny the local brokers of foreign merchants their accustomed protections. Second, Ottoman consuls refuted U.S. notions of expatriation and thereafter vacated key extradition and nationality treaties of 1874. Third, at the first turn of twentieth century, Ottoman officials lobbied against State Department policies enabling further restrictions to naturalized and derivative citizenship. Ultimately, the U.S.-Ottoman case became globally significant in demarcating new flash points of mass migration, humanitarian movements, and human rights on the eve of the Great War.

The turn of the nineteenth century in the United States saw the substantial influx of immigrants and a corresponding increase in anti-immigration and nativist tendencies among longer-settled Americans.

As early as 1704, noncitizen immigrants were legally allowed to vote in what would become the United States. By the end of the eighteenth century, noncitizens could legally vote in most states. State lawmakers offered the franchise as an incentive for white, male, Europeans of working age to migrate. However, rising immigration and nativism led states to reconsider alien suffrage, as noncitizen voting was known, and alien suffrage nearly disappeared by the 1840s. Revived by territorial expansion, demands for cheap labor, urbanization, racism, and sexism, alien suffrage expanded in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, peaking a century after the nation’s founding. However, resurgent nativism, wartime xenophobia, and corruption concerns pushed lawmakers to curtail noncitizen voting, and citizenship became a voting prerequisite in every state by 1926.

In the nineteenth century, maritime quarantine officials often paid more attention to ships' cargo than they did to the health of passengers or crew members. Based on a close reading of the everyday practice of quarantine at Philadelphia's Lazaretto (1801–1895), this article suggests that the historical significance of quarantine has been distorted by its association with the etiological debate over contagion and with xenophobic responses to immigration. In fact, the practice of quarantine rested neither on contagionist medical doctrine nor on nativism. Rather, it was based on the danger of infection, an elusive but fundamental concept in nineteenth-century public health. The concern about cargo rather than people—and the logic of infection it reflects—bespeak a widely shared set of perceptions of illness and public health in the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century that is not captured by discussions of contagion or of anti-immigrant bias.

During the 20th century the United States witnessed social, political, and economic transformations as well as advancements in medical diagnosis and care. Despite changes in demography, the meaning of citizenship, and the ability to treat and cure acute and chronic diseases, foreigners were consistently associated with germs and contagion. This article explores why, at critical junctures in American history, immigrants have been stigmatized as the etiology of a variety of physical and societal ills. The article analyzes three periods from 1880 to the present and suggests that now, as germs progressively and, often, indiscriminately cross national, social, and economic boundaries through multiple vectors, the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. Protecting the public health in the current era of globalization requires an ecumenical, pragmatic, and historically informed approach to understanding the links between immigration and disease.