• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

222 An American congressional: “Report of the Sub-Committee of the Immigration Commission,” 1907; Senator A. C. Latimer and Rep. John L. Burnett, File 1060, Folder 8, IRL; Taylor, 123.

222 William Williams was: Letter from Charles Nagel to William Williams, April 6, 1911, File 53139-7, INS.

223 Nagel won no friends: “Hearings on House Resolution No. 166,” House Committee on Rules, United States House of Representatives, May 29, 1911, 107; Max J. Kohler, Immigration and Aliens in the United States: Studies of American Immigration Laws and the Legal Status of Aliens in the United States (New York: Bloch, 1936), 46.

223 This was not: Otto Heller, ed., Charles Nagel: Speeches and Writings, 1900–1928, vol. 1 (New York: Putnam’s, 1931), xviii, 146; Letter from Charles Nagel to William Howard Taft, April 16, 1912, Number 3D, Series 6, WHT. 223 The agitation among: “Hearings on House Resolution No. 166,” House Committee on Rules, United States House of Representatives, May 29, 1911, 3–6. 224 Before the hearings: Letter from William Williams to Prescott Hall, May 12, 1911, File 916, Folder 2, IRL.

224 Still, while the earlier: Letter from William Williams to Charles Nagel, June 5, 1911, Folder 81, Box 5, WW-Yale.

225 He had arrived: On Bass, see “An English Pastor’s Experience on Ellis Island: The Abuse of the USA Immigration Laws,” undated, Reel 409; Letter from William Williams to Commissioner-General of Immigration, January 30, 1911; Letter from Charles Nagel to Charles D. Norton, Secretary to the President, February 25, 1911, Series 6, Reel 409, WHT; “Hearings on House Resolution No. 166,” House Committee on Rules, United States House of Representatives, May 29, 1911, 130–135; New York Evening Journal, June 21, 1911; Letter from William Williams to Commissioner General of Immigration, March 9, 1911, Box 13, Folder 10, MK.

227 With the failure: NYT, October 8, 1911; Charles Thomas Johnson, Culture at Twilight: The National German-American Alliance, 1901–1918 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 76; Morgen Journal, January 4, 17, February 7, 1912. 227 Williams had his defenders: HW, June 10, 1911.

228 Arthur von Briesen: Letter from Arthur von Briesen to William Howard Taft, June 29, 1911, Folder 82, Box 5, Series I, WW-Yale.

228 Williams’s most steadfast: Letter from William Howard Taft to William Williams, November 25, 1911, Number 90, Reel 509, Series 8, WHT.

228 In his own way: Letter from William Howard Taft to William Williams, May 2, 1913, Folder 9, Box 1, WW-Yale.

228 Williams continued with: Thomas Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate: A History of Ellis Island (New York: New York University Press, 1975), 109.

229 The economic effects: NYT, September 28, 1912, September 21, 1913; Philip Cowen, Memories of an American Jew (New York: International Press, 1932), 184.

229 When the U.S. Commission: On the Dillingham Commission, see Robert F. Zeidel, Immigrants, Progressives and Exclusion Politics: The Dillingham Commissioner, 1900–1927 (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004); Desmond King, Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 50–81; Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 128–132; Oscar Handlin, Race and Nationality in American Life (Boston: Little, Brown, 1948), 93–138; Jeremiah Jenks and W. Jett Lauck, The Immigration Problem: A Study of American Immigration Conditions and Needs (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1913); and Survey, January 7, 1911. Tichenor found that the Dillingham Commission’s “expert findings offered a portrait of southern and eastern European newcomers that legitimized the xenophobic narrative and policy agenda of Progressive Era restrictionists.” In response, Zeidel notes that the Dillingham Commission was deeply rooted in the reform movements of the early twentieth century, a fact many historians have ignored “because they have not wanted to equate any form of xenophobia with progress.” Its conclusions and recommendations