-- in convention. two, stop the interests. specifically the railroads. >> watch all of our events from madison next saturday starting at noon eastern. and next saturday starting at 3:00 on c-span3. >> each week american history tv sits in on a lecture with one of the nation's college professors. you can watch the classes every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern. next holy cross professor edward , o'donnell talked about the prejudice many immigrants faced in the 19th century with regard to religion, customs, and social status. professor o'donnell says this often lead to fights over what would be taught in public schools, questions of loyalty of catholic politicians, and job postings stating things like "no

irish need apply." this class is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> welcome to the latest chapter of the irish-american experience. we will be talking about nativism, the anti-immigrant movement that explodes in the 19th century, pretty much impacting all immigrants, but especially the irish. they are the biggest group. they are the most identifiable group. they are in the biggest cities. they stand out and generate an enormous opposition. before we get into that, let's back up a little bit. we are not just going to be simply talking about the irish today, because the nativist response the irish generates actually existed before the irish got here. you can find early versions of it in the early 18th century and you also find echoes of it since that time. it speaks to the larger american experience. it is a kind of phenomenon that

we pride ourselves of being a nation of immigrants, but we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation that is always questioning that tradition. let's start with looking at things in 2014. what do americans think of immigration? if you go to ellis island, you will see this image, an american flag, very large. about 20 feet long, 10 feet high. if you stand on one end, it has kind of a hologram effect. if you stand to be right side you just see a big flag, and if you walk to where i am standing, the image changes and you see these faces representing these ethnic and racial groups. ellis island to miss rates how much americans love immigration. this seems strange given the politics today, but americans, i would say most americans today in the 21st century absolutely love immigration. as strange as that may sound, hold that thought. but we know from headlines, from politics, debates in congress and so forth then americans also

hate immigration. it seems we have always hated it. we will get to the explaining how that is possible, to love and hate something at the same time. it is not that half of americans love it and half of them hate it. it is that millions of americans at the same time love it and hate it. and there is a good reason for that and it has been the same reason for long, long time. two kinds of immigration. this is one way to look at it. who wants to venture a guess? how is it possible for somebody, maybe if you go back to that earlier image, the woman standing holding the flag saying america has been invaded. how does someone like that express love for immigration? what kind of immigration would she like? yes? >> she would like the old-style immigration, not old, but immigration of the past? probably when her ancestors most likely came over? >> the key word is what? past.

immigration from a generation or two or three or four ago. it always seems to be a welcome thing, a positive thing, a contributing thing to the greater good of the united states. and what kind of immigration can you imagine americans hate, even the same people? when they push back against immigration, denounce immigration, whether it be legal or illegal? what do they dislike? jack, what is the likely -- someone who likes past immigration, has strong feelings about it, but -- >> they would just be opposed to new immigration. illegal immigration. stuff like that. >> even legal immigration, some people are upset about coming people are coming to this country legally. so it has to do with timing. done,e basically have

generations over time, we have compartmentalized our understanding of immigration. we think of it in a very positive setting in a museum setting. like people go to ellis island and do their genealogy and millions of americans will tell you proudly about when their grandfather came over from greece or ireland and became part of the great american dream. but when it is happening around us, whether it is us in 2014, us in 1894 or 1844, it seems alarming. it seems quite alien and dangerous. that is the kind of dynamic we will be looking at today. where these ideas of -- two ways of thinking about immigration. and there is a variation of two kinds of immigration. if you think of the positive side, the way we think of it in positive terms. it is something i call the multicultural ideal. that is -- especially in the 20th century, 21st century, we have developed this language of diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism. where the words we use express

why it is a good thing. this is great historical depth to it. you can go back to the late 18th century hector st. john wrote a , series of small essays about america. america being born. and he is really one of the first guys to really write down what this thing is, this america that is being born. and one of his most famous observations is that here, individuals from all nations and races are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day was great -- cause great changes in the world. so he is saying america is destined for greatness, and one of the key factors is it has this melting pot effect. it is people and ideas and traditions and melting them into a new race of people. that is not a new idea. way back in the colonial period we had people thinking in these terms. but we also had people like benjamin franklin. as one ofmally cite

the most open-minded people in america, in the world. we think of him as one of the great enlightened people, great science and literature and a great entrepreneur. but he is not above having that negative reaction to immigration as it is happening. in the mid-1700s, pennsylvania experienced a big influx in german immigrants. they are settling in an area that is mostly called germantown. franklin just goes off on it and says -- and he refers to them as palatine boors, which trust me, it is a nasty thing to say about germans. he says why are we doing this? why should the palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by hurting ding together her establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours?

they will germanize us as opposed to us anglicized thing ing them.iz so, 1763, we have a vivid expression of classic nativism. they are making the case, they will not blend in. they will bring alien ways. they will cause trouble. that may sound familiar. just to prove the point how time was those words are, we take what franklin just said in 1753 and change six words. we will set it in a modern context. this is what franklin said in 1753. if we swap out some modern words it reads like this. why should mexicans be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by hurting together establish their language and culture to the exclusion of hours? why should california, founded by americans, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so ze usous as to hispanici instead of our americanizing them? it is timeless expression. deep, deep local roots. -- deep, deep historical roots.

all right. anybody have any questions? all right. so, why do we think this way? let's jump into it. before we do, let's remind ourselves are where we are historically. we're almost halfway through our semester. looking at the history of irish-american immigration. we are situated in the middle of the 19th century. we talked about famine migration and some of the struggles of those immigrants economically, socially, politically. and that is part of the old immigration. the next part -- the biggest explosion of immigration that took place in the first two thirds of the 19th century. 8 million immigrants. they mostly come from northern and western europe. so you're talking about the irish, germans, english, scandinavians, and chinese. they obviously do not come from northern and western europe, but they come to california during this time. very small numbers, but a very distinct group, and they, too, will generate a nativist response on the west coast. around 1880, a new flow, a much larger flow.

you can see the numbers. 8 million versus 20 million. the predominant flow starts to come from east and southern europe. it is right in the middle of this old immigration that the nativist response just explodes. it turns out to be more than just a lot of anger. it turns out to be a full-blown political movement. all right so, what is this , nativist tradition? let's talk about politically and historically what happened in mid-19th century, first, and then we will break down nativism into its component arts. so here is an emblem of the know nothing party or the american if its formal name. their nickname is the know nothings. it is not entirely clear why they were the know nothings. the lord is they were a secret society.

e is they were a secret society. you know, the masons and so forth. part of the way they created an allure about themselves, it would not tell people about the organization. if somebody wrote up -- walked up to a member of the know nothing party, they would say "i know nothing." that heightened interest. there are early versions in the 1840's, but it becomes a full-blown political movement in the mid-19th century. particularly in 1854 and 1855. the american party -- it is important to point out, what is happening in 1854 is the whig party. remember this, the whig party and the democratic party. the whig party is disintegrating over the issue of slavery. we have this time where we have main party and a whole bunch of one splinter parties trying to create a viable second party. in a lot of americans believed that the american party was the next big party, the replacement for the whigs. it turns out there is another movement out there more

concerned about slavery, and that is the republican party. that is the one that will try .- triumphan but from here, it looks like the american party. look at the statistics. 1854, the american party wins control of the state governments of delaware, pennsylvania, and massachusetts in 1854. in massachusetts, it is a complete suite. they take control of both houses of the legislature, the lieutenant governor, the governor. a complete takeover. the next year, maryland and kentucky also, under american party control. if there were political forecasts in those days, this anti-immigration movement seems to be the one that will coalesce into a viable second party. a couple more stats. they also had really strong finishes and became quite powerful -- not quite dominant -- in states like new york and california. then in congress, 75 congressmen were elected with either

explicit american party credentials or had the backing of the american party, so there was a lot of political influence, both locally and at the state level and also in halls of congress. all right. does anybody have any questions? ok, let's look at this. what were the nativists afraid of? they were afraid of a lot of things, and it does change over time. the order of priority, the order of things people worry about can change. but in 1850, the mid-19th century period when the know nothings emerge, religion is absolutely the number one issue. specifically catholicism. one of the readings i had you do

was by samuel f. b. morse. almost all americans with a sense of history can name the one thing he is famous for. this is the morse. he is the inventor of the telegraph. he is certainly the inventor of the telegraph the becomes the standard and really revolutionizes communications. that is a pretty big contribution to history. he is also well-known as an artist. he is one of america's better-known early 19th-century artists. he has a third feathering his -- feather in his cap in terms of making an imprint on society and that is the leading voice of anti-catholic alarmism. he is basically -- if you look at the title of his 1835 publication -- "the foreign conspiracy against the liberties of the united states." pretty explicit. so, you had to do that reading last night. let's ask a few questions. what are some of the accusations he is making? >> pretty much the catholics were following the rules of the pope and the priests would pretty much command them.

and -- shoot. that gets us started right there -- >> that it's a started right there. unlike individual americans who are freethinkers, who are beholden to no one but themselves, the idea that morse is conveying is that catholics are by nature authoritarian so -- and believe in an authoritarian structure. the hierarchy of the church is un-american, undemocratic, unrepublican way of thinking and operating. so that is a mark against them. but he is saying it is even worse. it is not just that they have this hierarchal way of thinking. what is the conspiracy? >> he sees a really big connection between the catholic church and european influence. he sees catholics in america as still beholden to the pope and with that political influence in europe. >> the foreign conspiracy. to most non-catholics, particularly those concerned about the rise of catholicism

are saying catholicism by nature disqualifies you as a true republican citizen. because not only do you believe in this hierarchical way of operating society, but you also, according to their understanding, owe complete loyalty to a foreign king, a foreign power. in this case the pope. and the pope was a civil leader. they see him as a king. him as a different sort of king, but they think of him in royal, monarchical terms. which is the opposite of americans' political understanding of themselves. what else? can someone tell me a phrase or something that stood out? >> on the very last paragraph, he calls catholics "the enemy." "the enemy is awake." he basically says their whole goal is to rid the world of liberty. not just america, but the whole entire world. >> he says protestantism is tied to liberty, republican liberty. and catholicism is tied to what?

good mid-19th century words. the d word. >> despotism? >> right. despotism. it is essentially a religion of tyranny, despotism squelching , freedom, freedom of conscience and so forth. he is saying, hey, americans, as you look around and see all of these poor, hopeless, helpless irish coming into our cities, do not be fooled. this is part of an advance army of the pope who hates liberty, hates republicanism, and will destroy it as soon as he can, as soon as he gets enough bodies on the ground and they have leaders, the priests. the priests have leaders, the archbishops. the archbishops have leaders, the cardinals. and this is the command structure that will attempt to overthrow the republic. this may sound crazy, but it made a lot of sense to people in that period.

does anybody have a connection between this kind of conspiracy mania and a different time in american history? >> [indiscernible] >> yes, it is amazing. i swapped out those words of franklin and put in mexican. you could take the words that morse wrote and instead of catholic, put in "communist" and russia, and it works the same way. hey, america you are about to be taken over by communist spies. that was the message of mccarthy in the 1940's and 1950's. have fears often similarities to them. morse is not alone. there is a huge amount of anti-catholic literature. if you go into a barnes & noble today, there is the automotive the spirituality

section, the biography and history -- if there was such thing as a barnes & noble in 1835, a big section would be "the pope is coming to get us." papal conspiracy literature. and images. you all have a copy of this image in front of you or between you. take a look at it. do you see the connection? this is a visual representation from a different book published at roughly the same time that shows many of the messages, many of the ideas and accusations that morse was making, but here in visual form. so, what you notice about the details? what are some of the -- >> the pope is on a throne. >> you could not look any more royal, right? if we did not know the context we would think, this is some sort of european king. he is sitting on a throne. he has a couple lackeys on either side of them, great a big crown. remember, americans in the 19th century, when they think about what they are, they also think

about what they are not. they are republicans and democrats with a big r and small d. what is the action in the image? >> toward the town, the american town. >> on the split screen, it is kind of hard to tell. he is pointing towards america, across the atlantic ocean towards a schoolhouse. the schoolhouse, as he will seen a few moments, that becomes the flashpoint of this anti-catholic mania. one of the flashpoints. anything else? >> it looks like he is standing on the bible? given a lot of things we have read, they call about how the pope does not want anything to do with the bible. that seems like a significant thing. >> that is an important detail. that is more the religious side of the argument. which is by now, it is 1855 when

, this image is first published. and the point that people would make is protestants believe in individualism and individual reading and interpretation of the bible and so forth, if you know your reformation history, and catholics had that authoritarian idea that only the pope and the bishops and the priests can read certain parts of the bible to you and tell you what it means. that is obviously an exaggerated image to say the pope is anti-bible, right? now you can see where that comes from. the title of this book is called "the papal conspiracy exposed and protestantism vindicated" by edward beecher. and the title of the image itself is " popery undermining free schools." the public school system is being invented at this time. people quickly start to see this as a key part of democracy and a republic, and when the big

debates in say you at this time about which bible -- not whether there will be a bible. nobody disagreed on that. it was what bible? catholic bible or protestants bible? then the propaganda flies. this is not far from we are in massachusetts. in 1834, an ursuline convent was burned to the ground by an angry mob that showed up in august of 1834. there were wild rumors that the nuns had kidnapped a local protestant girl, were forcing her to become a catholic nun. the mob showed up, egged on by preachers, and they burned the convent. luckily, no one was hurt. this speaks to the fear that people have for catholicism. a little more detail about this pope is coming to get us a literature we were talking about. in this 40-year period, 210 books. you can read the numbers there. huge output of anti-catholic,

catholic conspiracy literature. one after another. this stuff was more popular than antislavery or proslavery literature. which is the other great cultural debate in the mid-19th century. and the best-selling book of all -- it is only did throne with and -- unthrrone oned with "uncle tom's cabin." "the awful disclosures of maria monk." it was published in 1836. it was exposed to be a fraud, but it tells the story of a catholic girl growing up in canada. she becomes friendly with the nuns she goes to the convent, , and as soon as the doors are shut, she found out the real story. most of it involved sexual impropriety, priests taking advantage of nuns, among other

things. there is a fear that there is an army of catholics about to overthrow the republic. there is also a fear of morally speaking that they pose a great threat to the republic. and that is why, this great fear of condiments. maria monk is this huge bestseller. she goes on a big book tour. the baby she is holding is a baby she eventually becomes pregnant, according to her story, by an irish priest. they fled the convent because they were going to kill the baby to hide the evidence. she was exposed as a fraud and she died in poverty. the anti-catholic activists that sponsored or got all the money. and we know this, because there were court records about who actually wrote the book and all -- so forth. you get the picture. we mentioned that earlier image of the free school, the american school, was one of the key flashpoints. so, what do americans think about schools, as they become

key institutions and this emerging tomography? let me read -- in this emergency -- emerging democracy. let me read these words here. you can basically put anything in to a public school and you get a republican citizen. public schools take the child of the exile of hungary, of the half starved immigrant from the emerald isle -- there are the irish -- and of the hearty norwegian, and places them on the same bench with the offspring of those whose ancestors' bones bleached upon the fields of lexington. long-standing generations of american. as the child of the foreigner plays with his school fellow, he learns to whistle yankee doodle and sing hail columbia. americans have this very positive feeling about the emerging public school system. and then comes along this large immigrant group, largely irish catholics who say, we do not want to send our kids to public schools. we cannot, because they are immoral and they threaten the souls and well-being of our kids.

here is archbishop hughes, he becomes really the most prominent catholic leader in the mid-19th century. he says we could not discharge ourconscientious duty to offspring, if we allow them to be brought up our -- under the influence of these schools. he throws down the religious , cultural gauntlet. he says we will build our own parochial institution. it is a rejection of a key institution in american life. furthermore, what he does not say here is, those who do go to public school, we will fight for their right to read catholic bibles, not protestant bibles. this is not just an intellectual argument. in philadelphia in the spring of 1844, the city of philadelphia in throes of sectarian rioting called the bible riots. because they are arguing about

which bible is going to be used in the public school. these are real riots. they go on for days. 22 people killed, three churches burned, blood running in the streets, over this issue of catholic or protestant bibles in public schools. all right. and you can still see evidence of this in new york. in new york, in the cathedral, saint patrick's, right in the middle of new york and midtown, an earlier version was down in what is now chinatown. this is the old st. patrick's cathedral. you will notice there is a very high wall around it. this is a 10 foot high wall all around the property. that was not there originally. the church was built in 1814. there was no wall. it was open. they built the wall in the 1840's because they were afraid the church would be destroyed because mobs constantly were rumored and threatened to be about to do so. this is a fortified cathedral. let me show you a couple more images before we move on to another aspect of nativism. thomas nast, the great

cartoonist of the late 18th -- 19th century. he cartoons everything. this particular focus on the threat of the catholic church. this is the 1870's, so this gives you an idea of how this plays out over decades. these are not alligators. sideways,n your head you can see -- these are irish bishops hitting the beaches and there is a schoolmaster protecting the schoolchildren of america from the foreign catholic influence. and then to give you a quick look forward, this is 1928. this is well into the 20th century. al smith, who we will talk about in a subsequent lecture, he was running for president. he was the first irish catholic to be nominated by a major party, the democratic party, and he just gets hammered by the republicans and the ku klux klan and other nativist, anti-catholic groups. here he is shown conforming to the idea. he bows before a foreign king, kissing the ring of the pope. could you vote for him?

he wants to be placed in the white house. the answer is obvious. you cannot have a catholic in the white house. it is 32 years later, john kennedy runs. he, too -- things are diminished by then, but he still has to answer the question. can you be a catholic and an independent political leader in the united states? and we also know, if you look across the country today, more than two dozen states that have anti-sharia law statutes because people are imagining there is this conspiracy, sharia by stealth, this idea that sharia law, muslim law is creeping into our political system and they are heading it off at the pass by passing these resolutions. i think 30 or so states have done that by now. in recent times. another dimension. nativism and non-assimilation -- or i should say perceived non-assimilation. it is always in the eye of the

shoulder. this is what new york city looks like in 1865. you can see there are two predominant ethnic enclaves. the orange represents little germany. the three green wards represent an area where the irish are concentrated. today, we go to little italy and chinatown, and no one is pleased about this. this is seen as a willful effort not to blend in. in fact this conforms to what , ben franklin was saying. they are crowding together and refusing to assimilate. they will try to germanize us. this is a typical comment from this period. "there are portions of new york where the population is as thoroughly irish as in dublin or cork." this is not an amused statement. you can see that they are clustered there at the bottom of the image.

those are the irish neighborhoods. they are bunched together. most people do not look at that sociologically and economically and say, oh, that is the worst housing. that is the one place people will let them live. they are saying they are choosing to crunch together, choosing not to assimilate. and our reading from last night touches on this issue from 1860. i should've given you a little bit of background on that. in 1860, the united states is going to welcome the prince of wales. it is going to be at big visit. omp and circumstance wherever he goes. part of the ceremony, there is this great big parade, the militias, the march. the prince will have a great big welcome. michael corcoran, an irish nationalist, one of these guys who is driven out of ireland -- we will talk about him in a couple of classes. he says, we're not marching to that guy.

he is the heir to the crown of the continent that oppresses ireland. we are not going to do it. he gets court-martialed. the only thing that saves them -- saves him is a civil war breaks out. what is their interpretation of irish soldiers? >> from what i could tell, it seems like they were calling the irish ungrateful. they are going on about how they have gotten land, pretty cheap land, they have been good to them. they have allowed them to practice their to follow schism. right. even though because we don't want to we have been tolerant. , >> they say the irish are insubordinate. >> disloyal really. we have given you all of this. you do not deserve it. you are filling our jails. you are filling our hospitals. you're jacking up our taxes. you are corrupting our democracy. we still let you stay.

and yet, you pulled this incredibly embarrassing act of treason. we can't trust you. this tells us you are probably not ever going to be good americans just because either it is your temperament or your religion or whatever it may be. so, it really angered the editors of "harper's," and this is one of those flashpoints where they put their cards on the table. you can see in the images, a pretty vivid example of how the irish are perceived. the message -- you see lady liberty, and she is stirring the pot of immigrants. you see all different kinds of ethnic groups represented. you see the one who is -- he is eventually going to get in there, that is the implication, but he is going to have to be whacked over the head, right? he has his irish flag. he has his knife. he is exhibiting the kind of anger and riotousness people

associate with the irish. it is no coincidence he is the one standing on the lip of the pot. all right. another dimension of nativism. it is more vague. it is related to this idea of clustering together. this idea they are taking over. you hear this in the recent past. people talk about the cubans are taking over miami or whatever. this is an earlier version of that. when the irish came in such enormous numbers. we talk about these numbers where they go from being a small percentage of new york and boston, philadelphia to becoming 30%, 40%, 50%, if you include their american-born children. 50% of the population. here is a vivid cartoon from the 1860's. the great fear of the period. "uncle sam may be swallowed by foreigners." and so, this is actually looking from canada. you have the irish on the east coast, the chinese on the west coast, and they are literally devouring uncle sam in a kind of

grotesque horror film way. this is actually the first panel. this is a multi panel cartoon. in the end, the china men an swallows the irishman. which gives you an idea -- if someone had to choose who was the most dangerous, they would choose the chinese, but the irish are right behind them. we see in this image, the rapid and really shocking growth of the irish in this mid-19th century period. largely due to the famine, but before the famine we know there are roughly 45,000 irish living in new york city. this does not include their american-born children. it is 25%, 28% of people born in ireland. if you throw when their kids, in their kids, you're talking 40%, 50% of the population.

and do not forget one thing in that statistic -- these are not just irish people. they are mostly irish catholics. this is a double set of fears there. i just threw this image in, too, to show you the other connections with other groups. this is from 1882. you see the caption at the bottom. "the dream of the jews realized." the cartoonist showing new york city completely taken over by jewish immigrants and they are taking down the sign that says john smith's drygoods. good american-born name, john smith. that is coming down and epstein and sons is being placed up there. the new herald is "the new jerusalem herald." you see stereotypes of jewish

people lording over the city. the funny thing is this is 1882 and the cartoonist is worried that there are too many jews in new york and it is just at this moment that the real great wave of jews comes, and this guy is freaking out. he has no idea what is about to hit american shores. nativism in poverty. think about this. now, this is not just a matter of thinking that immigrants are raising our poverty statistics. it is not just a matter of that. it has to do with our political culture and our sense of ourselves. right? what do americans think about when they think of themselves and their country and so forth? and the opposite, which is aristocratic, monarchical england. in that place, there are fixed classes and there are huge numbers of poor people there. unrepublicana

government. even though there are poor people in america, people think that it is very small and they are temporarily poor. then you see this wave of poor people from europe and they begin to fill things that we now call slums. and they say these people are artificially jacking up the poverty rate in america, a direct threat to our way of being. the irish in new york in 1850's. 64% of the people who end up in poor houses are born in ireland. way disproportionate to their percentage in the population. you also probably noticed on this teeter tottering boat -- we are literally importing, unwisely importing poverty into this republic. and here is an expression. america does not do poverty. that is not part of our political, social make up. we as a people, americans, are intolerant of ragged garments and empty paunches.

we are a people who have had no experience in physical tribulation. as a consequence, the ill clad and destitute irishman is repulsive to our habits and our taste. we associate ill clothing and destitution with ignorance and vice. ublican characteristics. here is one of the images that you have in front of you. this is a classic image of the irish, both male and female. what is the -- we can assume they are poor because they live in a shack. but what else? what is the nature? >> [indiscernible] >> that is the way the mid-19th century -- you would be able to spot that in a second that that is an irishman. that is the way they look or the way they are shown. this is very much the typical way they are shown. what else do we know about him? i did not give you the caption or a thing.

>> the man is sitting down. i don't know if that is signifying irish laziness? >> he is definitely poor, but he is what? >> [indiscernible] >> again running counter to that bootstraps political culture we have. you've got to pull yourself up. out of poverty. >> [indiscernible] >> two tropes, right? >> drunkenness and violence, definitely significant features of the irish stereotype right there. >> he is not only poor, but these are associated vices. he is a drinker, which may explain why he is poor, and he is also ready at the drop of a hat to wield his club and get into a scrape. but what is his attitude? -- what about his attitude? most of us seem to associate -- tend to associate poverty with misery. >> [indiscernible] it is not really seem to care.

>> yeah, he looks -- contents. not upset about his circumstances. obviously not saying what do i have to do to get out of the circumstances? to the american viewer this is a very on american approach to poverty. you're supposed to be desperate, embarrassed, ashamed of your poverty, and doing everything in your power to get out of it. they seem to be quite content with their circumstances. and again, just to show you how this idea carries forward, this is an image from 1896, showing uncle sam at the gates of america, holding his nose. and we have this composite immigrant, a little jewish, a little slavic, a little italian, etc.. he has a keg on his back, which means he is not only a drinker, but he is thinking on the

-- drinking on the sabbath. uncle sam is trying to stop. so those traits are not only representing the irish, but reused for whatever unpopular group is coming. if you look at the republican -- public institution records, hospital records in the mid-18 -- mid-19th century. these things are also being invented, along with public schools. you see the irish are a great disproportionate amount of the patients in the hospitals. bellevue hospital, a public hospital in new york, and it shows 85% of the foreign-born admissions are irish born. so just about everyone in that hospital for the public, for the poor, are irish born in the 1850's. there is a clear association with disease, poverty, and so on. here is a pretty vivid image from the 1880's showing the grim reaper on the bow of the ship. that is arriving at manhattan

island, which was when immigrants landed at that time. ellis island was a few years later. and the belt of the angel of death is cholera, right? epidemic of 1849 killed 4000 people in america, principally in cities like new orleans, boston, new york. over half of them were irish. it is associated with immigrants, and particularly irish. no one says they are the set by cholera because they are living in terrible housing. they are filthy people, right? they bring it on themselves. they had a hospital at the tip of manhattan island, because one of the things that they were concerned about was sick immigrants coming in. in staten island, where this hospital was built, a mob showed

up and destroyed the hospital. because they were so afraid that the spread of disease was going to be greatly increased by the presence of this hospital full of sick immigrants. another one, just to show the connection -- an anti-chinese cartoon from san francisco in the 1880's showing parts of san francisco, especially chinatown, leprosy, smallpox. these ghosts or these demons are labeled. this association of immigration and disease is very, very tight. all right, nativism and crime. and a lot of these overlap, by the way. where you often find poverty, you often find a height rate of crime. nativism and crime. new york city. we keep using new york, but is a great representation of the irish extremes. 55% of those arrested in the 1850's were irish born. 35% of the prostitutes arrested

in 1858 were irish born. wherever you turn, you found irish offenders. sometimes petty thieves, drunk and disorderly. sometimes much more serious stuff. this is a quotation about the irish from the 1880's by a judge. "there is a large class -- i was about to say majority -- of the population of new york and brooklyn to whom the rearing of two or more children inevitably means a boy for the present or a girl for the brothel." very blunt language. we have saying when the irish have a kid, it is either a future prostitute or criminal. this shows prisoners, i guess they are lining up or getting out of this wagon. the wagon known as? anyone with personal experience? what we call it? >> paddy wagon. >> why? it comes from the 1850's, the term.

>> the name patrick? nickname? >> it was a nickname, sometimes pejorative, sometimes affectionate. why would they call this a paddy wagon? >> because it is full of irishmen. >> the back is full of irishmen. it also may be because a large percentage of the men driving that van were irishman wearing blue uniforms. right? by the 1850's, 1860's over a quarter of the new york police department were irish born. it could be that they are showing up as criminals or increasingly members of law enforcement or both. the paddy wagon is born in that period. all right. other groups with certain kinds of criminal attributions given to them. the sinister chinese villain emerges in the 1870's, 1880's and becomes part of popular fiction and dime novels. a classic example of that here.

there is an image from 1909 call ed the fool pied piper. it shows immigrants coming to america as rats. it is pretty blunt. in the real pied piper story, the pied piper leads the rats out and they drown. in the full pied piper, uncle sam, not knowing any better, leads these rats and anarchists and thieves off to america. and notice the reaction of the european officials on the shore there, jumping for joy. the americans taking all of the worst of european society. they are literally coming out of the sewers and the jails. this idea of criminality is deeply, deeply embedded. all right. nativism and disorder. this is a dimension of criminality. basically rioting. rioting becomes a huge problem

in the mid-19th century in most american cities. we know about the stamp act riots and so forth. but those were more demonstration riots. they are about pageantry and role-playing where they burn an effigy of the governor, break a few things. in the mid-19th century, riots become incredibly violent and deadly. people begin to die as a result of the clashes. this is the dead rabbits riot of 1857, which was partially featured in the movie "gangs of new york." this is from the 1840's talking about the characteristics of the irish, right? "the vice and drunkenness among the lowering laboring classes is growing too frightful excess, and the multitudes of low irish catholics, restricted by poverty in their own country, run riot in this. as long as we are overwhelmed

with irish immigrants, so long will the evil abound." it is in the irish nature to be uncontrolled. this is the opposite idea of a good republican citizen. a republican citizen is rational. determined to get ahead. not the irishmen. and here is a thomas nast cartoon that shows a scene -- greatly exaggerated -- this is a st. patrick's day parade at an intersection with a parade. ran into some traffic and scuffling ensued, but nast blows it up into this full on hibernian riot. you will notice that he draws the irish as the savage beasts clubbing and beating bystanders and policeman. -- policemen. nast had the double delight that it was on st. patrick's day that this happened. you know. what more could you possibly expect? all right, any questions at this point? all right. there is more, right?

nativism, i tell you, it is multidimensional. there is a lot to it. nativism and labor. this will be familiar to our modern ears. the idea that immigrants steal jobs or lower wages. here's a poster from the 1850's. natives of the soil arouse! basically saying, shall american labor be protected? they will take our jobs out right, or they will work for less, and the wages of bricklayers and teamsters and things will begin to decline. this is one for the american party, the know nothings. this is probably number two to anti-catholicism. you see this statement on the american association for the improvement of the condition of the poor basically lays this out saying increased immigration from europe has had a negative effect on the laboring and mechanic classes of new york

city both by crowding them out , of employment, and diminishing the rewards of an history. needy foreigners accustomed to live upon less than our own countrymen. there is nothing more intimately associated with this than the phrase "no irish need apply." people sometimes use it jokingly now. sometimes you see it as a nina sign. no irish need apply. it has a really powerful place in irish-american historical memory. you have phrases that capture a big idea. the big idea here is when we came to this country in great numbers, americans hated us and discriminated against us. they made our adjustment to america all be more difficult. it was pretty difficult anyway because we were poor and did not have skills. it was doubled upon us as we were discriminated against. they shut us out of lucrative or decent jobs. the interesting thing is, people talk about it and they say,

yeah well, when irishmen showed , up at factories, they saw the no irish need apply sign. when they went to coal mines, they saw no irish need apply, when they went to the waterfront. there has been a lot of historical research done in which historians have been looking for evidence. this is what we do, right? you do not just take tradition and accepted at face value. what has happened is, there is very little evidence of that sort exists. there are fake vintage signs that were printed in me 20 -- the 20th century as almost novelties. so irish men, at least as far as we know, tend not to face -- at least these actual kinds. not to say they are not discriminated against. who bears the brunt of no irish need apply? where can you find this repeated phrase "no irish need apply"? it is in ads for irish women.

irish domestic servants. or domestic servants. in which they say "no irish need apply." you see this idea embodied in this image, also this image in front of you. we covered this in some respects. we can see who is the irish woman, very clearly. she's the one that looks like an ape. she also has orange shamrocks on her dress, just in case you did not get the idea. what else do you see? else do you notice? there is quite a bit of detail. >> [indiscernible] >> what is wrong with that? >> [indiscernible] >> she is the employer. this is her house. she is cowering in front of this gorilla like figure. which is completely the opposite of how it should be. she should be meek and submissive before the employer.

that is one thing that is wrong. this is the female version of the riotous irishman. she is rioting in the kitchen, and we can see that because of the broken dish on the ground. what else question mark what is the problem with the bridget? what about this irish bridget? i should have said that. you know her name, even though you do not know her name. she would be called a bridget, just like the men would be called paddys. what else? what else about her duty? >> she is uncooperative. >> on cooperative -- uncooperative, and what about tonight's dinner? >> it is boiling over. >> yes, and basically americans are saying, we need servants. we are becoming a middle-class society. we need servants. so, the great majority of people showing up to do that kind of work are irish women.

and there is this big pushback. if you read the classified ads, it will say "wanted, protestants girl, preferred german or preferred swedish." "no irish need apply." she is this very unlikable figure. she is like amelia bedelia on steroids. she is big and hokey and terrible at her job. why would her brother pat probably not face a "no irish need apply" at the waterfront? what is the difference between her job and his job? that makes americans just in terms of -- >> [indiscernible] is temperamental and things that his job -- if you're doing a manual labor job at the docks, no one is really going to care. whereas if you're working in someone's house, their obvious -- they are obviously going to get upset if you are wrecking their house and not doing your job.

>> and also you're dealing with children. so the sanctity of the american home. this ideal of domesticity is developing in middle-class american culture. the home is supposed to be clean and peaceful above all. and here comes this one-woman wrecking crew who is going to do a terrible job and, you know, who knows what with the children in the house? it is a conundrum. if you go into the historical database and type in "servant problem," you will find hundreds of articles and newspapers that have that in the headline. servant problems. we need lots of servants and the only ones we can seem to get are these women from ireland. here is the text from an ad. "wanted, an english or american woman who understands cooking to assist in the work generally if wished. also a girl to do chamber work. no irish need apply.

irish -- in capital letters in case you did not get the message -- do not need apply." like you say, who cares about the behavior of an irish man on the dock, as long as he does his job? here we have that swarthy amalgam of eastern european, southern european characteristics. he is reaching -- notice his little plume. he is reaching in and taking the food right off the table of the american-born workingman. "the inevitable result." we need to control our immigration so jobs and wages are preserved. here is one aimed at the chinese from the same time. showing a chinese man with 10 arms doing all the jobs and the young american men kicking around on the right-hand side because presumably they are unemployed. what shall we do with our boys, from 1882. alright, there is more. nativism and race.

you probably picked up on this. this image of the irish as beasts is not just someone being mean. it is someone dipping in to the idea of racial ideas and categories and so forth. take a look at two images . we have already seen. this is not just to be mean to the irish. they are saying these people are indeed lower on the scale of humanity. they belong to a lower race that is not too far from the baboon as depicted here. right? george hamilton strong was a great civic leader and merchant in new york in the mid-19th century, kept a big, regular diary. a gold mine of resources for historians. he wrote a lot about the irish. almost always in horror at their alien ways and behavior. they are almost as remote from us in their have its as the chinese.

the chinese are the furtherest out in the spectrum of respect ability. here is an image from an 1860's textbook. this is a book that should it is called physiognomy, the new physiognomy. you see a lot of similarity between this and that servant picture, right? you have the beautiful, composed, intelligent american-born woman. in this case, florence nightingale, who was a real person. if you look closely, what is the name of the woman on the far right? she looks apelike, dirty, and her name is bridget mcbruiser. i just have to tell you, there is no real person named bridget mcbruiser. even in their naming. -- they are tipping their hat there. the textbook explaining the physiognomy and so forth. shown in these images and documents -- here you can see the irish woman put side-by-side with an african-american woman,

and notice in the age of raging antiblack racism how the irish are being shown here. in this case, the irish woman is being shown as lower, much more inferior, less desirable, less controlled than the african-american woman. the whole point of the cartoon is, the irish woman is very upset that she is sitting next to a black woman, and the black woman is much more intelligent and much more middle-class than she is or ever will be. here's another image from thomas nast, again political commentary during the era of reconstruction, and he is basically saying there is a problem in the south that blacks have been given the right to vote, and there is a problem in the north that everybody has the right to vote including these legions of irishmen.

tapping into two different kinds of ideas there. as race becomes more "scientific" in the light -- late 19th, early 20th century, the racial component becomes more pronounced. all right, nativism in politics. because all of these people that thomas nast indicates, all of the men above a certain age, can vote.