News

Immigration 1820-1978

Immigration 1820-1978

Country

Total

Percentage

6,978,000

14.3

5,294,000

10.9

4,898,000

10.0

4,723,000

9.7

4,315,000

8.9

3,374,000

6.9

1,272,000

2.6

856,000

1.8

751,00

1.5

655,000

1.3

446,000

0.9

385,000

0.8

364,000

0.7

359,000

0.7

33,000

0.1


Le Mottee


Direct links to lists of baptisms, marriages and burials for the Le Mottee family can be found under Family Records opposite. If you want to search for records for a spelling variant of Le Mottee, or for any other family name, just click below on the first letter of the family name you are interested in. This will open a new tab in your browser giving you a list of family names beginning with that letter, for which there are baptism records in our database of half a million church and public registry records.

You can also select marriages or burials. Select the name you want and when the list of records is displayed you can easily refine the search, choosing a single parish, given name(s) and/or start and end dates.

The records are displayed 30 to a page, but by selecting the yellow Wiki Table option at the top left of the page you can open a full, scrollable list. This list will either be displayed in a new tab or a pop-up window. You may have to edit the settings of your browser to allow pop-up windows for www.jerripediabmd.net. For the small number of family names for which a search generates more than 1,500 records you will have to refine your search (perhaps using start or end dates) to reduce the number of records found.

New records

From August 2020 we have started adding records from non-Anglican churches, and this process will continue as more records, held by Jersey Archive, are digitised and indexed. Our database now includes buttons enabling a search within registers of Roman Catholic, Methodist and other non-conformist churches. These records will automatically appear within the results of any search made from this page.


If you can help with information about the Le Mottee family, please contact [email protected], using Jerripedia as the subject of your email. We are particularly interested in information which will help create further family trees, family histories and photographs


A Guide to Researching the Territorial Era

The territorial Capitol as sketched by the Comte de Castelnau and painted by Paris A. Bertrand in 1842

Family & Community Life

When Florida passed from Spanish to U.S. control in 1821, it was still mostly an unexplored frontier, with Native Americans making up the majority of the population. Pensacola, St. Augustine and Fernandina were the only towns of any size. Quickly, however, American settlers from other parts of the Southeast began making their way to Florida to take advantage of the newly available land.

The following record series document family and community institutions present in territorial Florida. Collections belonging to families, churches and civic organizations are included.

This guide provides the name and a description of each collection or series, plus its identification number, which is hyperlinked to its record in the Archives Online Catalog. Once inside the catalog record, you can access a list of the volumes, boxes, or folders that make up the collection or series.

Series 28: State Comptroller's Tax Rolls, 1829-1898

The series consists of copies of tax rolls, dated 1829 to 1898, which were prepared annually by county tax assessors and were submitted to the Comptroller, and his predecessor, the Territorial Auditor. These lists provided a basis for collecting taxes authorized by the Legislature.

The kinds of property enumerated and the amount of detail recorded varies greatly from year to year. In 1834, for instance, figures were entered only for the value of land and for the number of slaves between the ages of 15 and 50. By 1861, the information included the number of white males in the household between the ages of 21 and 50 the number of acres of land, its assessed value, and the value of improvements the type and value of intangible property the number of slaves and their value and the number and value of livestock.

The series is incomplete for most counties. In April 2006 volumes were added for Jefferson [1846 1855 1857], Taylor [1866], Wakulla [1856 1861], Walton [1846] and Washington [1845] counties. A microfilm edition of these volumes was also added.

Genealogists and local historians will find this series especially useful for reconstructing households and tracing the fortunes of individual families over time. The tax rolls can also help identify who in a given county had the largest holdings of land and other property. Furthermore, since doctors, lawyers, and owners of saloons, billiard halls and ten-pin alleys were taxed for their occupation, these documents can help identify those individuals in a given community.

Collection M74-5: Records of Saint Michael's Catholic Church in Pensacola, 1811-1956

The first church dedicated to St. Michael was erected on Santa Rosa Island by Tristan de Luna y Aveliana when a colony was established in 1559. Since that time, church and colony have lived under five flags.

Under the Confederacy, the church located at Jefferson and Zarragossa streets was burned by Union soldiers, after allegedly having used it for quartering horses during the Civil War. A new wooden church was erected on East Government at Jefferson Street. Yet another fire caused its destruction during the yellow fever outbreak in 1882. The cornerstone for the present structure was laid at Palafox and Chase streets in 1885 and the church was formally dedicated in 1886. Most of the early records of the church have been lost to fire, plague or storm since its inception.

The collection contains the records of Saint Michael's Catholic Church located at Pensacola from 1811 to 1956. Records of the church include baptisms (1880-1953), baptisms of blacks (1817-1882), marriages (1811-1937), burials (1841-1956) and confirmations (1884-1931).

Collection M74-5: Records of Saint Michael's Catholic Church in Pensacola, 1811-1956

The first church dedicated to St. Michael was erected on Santa Rosa Island by Tristan de Luna y Aveliana when a colony was established in 1559. Since that time, church and colony have lived under five flags.

Under the Confederacy, the church located at Jefferson and Zarragossa streets was burned by Union soldiers, after allegedly having used it for quartering horses during the Civil War. A new wooden church was erected on East Government at Jefferson Street. Yet another fire caused its destruction during the yellow fever outbreak in 1882. The cornerstone for the present structure was laid at Palafox and Chase streets in 1885 and the church was formally dedicated in 1886. Most of the early records of the church have been lost to fire, plague or storm since its inception.

The collection contains the records of Saint Michael's Catholic Church located at Pensacola from 1811 to 1956. Records of the church include baptisms (1880-1953), baptisms of blacks (1817-1882), marriages (1811-1937), burials (1841-1956) and confirmations (1884-1931).

Collection M74-23: Records of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Tallahassee, 1836-1954

Trinity Church was established in 1824 as the first Methodist Episcopal Church in Tallahassee and one of the first in Florida. A year later, the first church building, a plain wooden structure, was erected on the corner of Bronough and Park streets. The church moved in 1827 to the corner of Duval and Park streets, where a brick structure with a slave gallery and church bell was built. Itinerant clergy served the church until 1828, when Rev. Josiah Freeman became the first permanent pastor. The church is now officially the Trinity United Methodist Church and is in the same location, although a new church was built in 1964.

The collection contains the records of the Trinity United Methodist Church located in Tallahassee which include registers of membership (1836-1837, 1856-1877, 1899-1954), deaths (1876), marriages (1899-1954), baptisms (1899-1954) and pastors (1897-1950). Also included is a church history entitled "Some Highlights of the History of Trinity Methodist Church, Tallahassee, Florida" by Frank D. Moor and genealogical information of the Stuart family contained in a family Bible, which belonged to Mrs. P. O. DeMilly (Daisy Stuart).

Collection M75-78: Cotten Family Papers, 1840-1925

The collection contains the papers of the Cotten Family of Leon County, Florida from 1840 to 1925. Items include receipts for the sale of cotton, a receipt for the sale of a slave, a quitclaim deed of Elizabeth C. Cotten, an annual return of Frederick Cotten as testamentary guardian to the estate of John W. Cotten, and a plat of land owned by J. Markhill. Also part of the collection are some cancelled checks of Helen M. Edwards of Monticello.

Collection M75-86: Randolph Family Papers, 1820-1978

The Randolph family moved from Virginia to Florida in 1829 and settled in Tallahassee. They became active in its civic and social life here. Thomas Eston Randolph and Jane Cary Randolph had eight children. Randolph was appointed U.S. Marshal for the Middle Florida district in 1831. His son, Dr. James Randolph, served in the legislative delegation from Leon County in 1845 became a surgeon in the provisional army of the Confederacy and was mayor of Tallahassee in 1876. In 1881, Dr. Randolph was appointed superintendent and physician in charge of the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee. With his father, he co-founded St. John's Episcopal Church. The Randolph daughters conducted the first girl's school in Tallahassee.

The collection contains papers of the Randolph family of Leon County, Florida. The correspondence includes four letters from William Eston Randolph to his family, 1814 to 1816, while traveling to Baltimore and Amsterdam, Holland correspondence to Mrs. Thomas Eston Randolph of Albemarle, Va. from family members, 1823 to 1836 seven letters from Thomas Easton and William Duval Randolph, 1861 to 1862, to their family while serving in Pensacola during the Civil War.

An 1835 account book records the travels and business of Thomas Eston Randolph, U.S. Marshal for the District of Middle Florida. There is also a transcript of a diary account by Dr. Arthur Moray Randolph describing his journey to Virginia from Florida to tend his dying son in a Civil War hospital. Several pencil drawings, hand-colored sketches, poems and essays attest creative and artistic ability in the family. There are also is genealogical materials, including two family trees, two compiled genealogies and several newspaper obituaries.

Collection M82-3: Royal Arch Masons, Chapter 32 Meeting Minutes, 1828-1861

The Florida Royal Arch Masons Chapter No. 32 was organized in Tallahassee in 1827 under the jurisdiction of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the State of Virginia. It is a fraternal association of Masons holding advanced masonic degrees. Applicants must be a Master Mason in good standing in a freemason's lodge. It later became affiliated with the Most Excellent Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of the State of Florida. The fraternal brotherhood of masons instructs members in moral truths provides scholarships for learning and does charitable works.

The collection comprises the minutes of the Royal Arch Masons, Chapter 32, located in Tallahassee. Contained in the minutes are membership lists, by-laws and regulations, annual returns and mark master's marks.

Collection M84-3: Kingsley Beatty Gibbs Journal, 1810-1860

Kingsley Beatty Gibbs was the son of George and Isabelle (Kingsley) Gibbs, and nephew of Zephaniah Kingsley, extensive planter of Fort George Island. On the death of his uncle, Gibbs inherited the plantation on Fort George Island, his uncle's schooner, "North Carolina," and his uncle's books.

The collection contains a journal of Kingsley Beatty Gibbs that was written in 1858 from his notes. Gibbs wrote monthly journal entries describing plantation life at Fort George Island and the political atmosphere of the time. His reminiscences cover the period from January, 1840 to June, 1843.

Collection M84-16: Richard Keith Call Correspondence, 1820-1860

The third and fifth territorial governor of Florida, Richard Keith Call came to Florida in 1814 as a soldier with General Andrew Jackson. Serving as personal aide to Jackson, Call helped set up Florida's territorial government at Pensacola in 1821. The next year, he started a law practice there. Successively, he was a member of the Legislative Council, delegate to Congress, receiver of the West Florida land office, brigadier general of the West Florida militia and territorial governor. Commanding the troops in the Seminole war while governor, Call routed the Indians in the second and third battles of Wahoo Swamp. He was removed as governor because of controversy with Federal authorities over help for Florida in the Indian conflict. When Florida became a state in 1845, Call ran for governor but was defeated.

The collection contains letters written to or relating to General Call. Included is a January 20, 1820, letter from General Edmund P. Gaines to Edmund Doyle, an Indian trader on the Apalachicola River. Gaines asks Doyle to communicate to the chiefs of the "Seminoles" and the Red Stick Creeks the desire of the United States Government to negotiate a treaty. Also included is a December 1826 letter from Andrew Jackson to Richard Keith Call dealing primarily with Call's disagreement with Colonel Joseph White and the settlement of Call's father-in-law's will. Jackson notes his feelings toward Call. The third letter is from Edward Everett to Richard Keith Call, dated December 31, 1860. Everett, a noted Massachusetts orator, thanks the General for sending him copies of Call's recent pro-union, anti-secession pamphlet, "An Address to the People of Florida from General Richard Keith Call." Everett comments on the secession crisis and his belief that General Winfield Scott should be given temporary dictatorial powers to prevent civil war.

Collection M84-17: Records of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Ridgely Lodge No. 9 (Marianna), 1836-1866

The Independent Order of Odd Fellows was formed in 1819 as a fraternity of men and provided relief for member's widows, orphans, the sick and distressed. Rituals resembled those of the masons, including secret passwords, signs and voting by ball ballot. Local units were called "lodges" regional units, "Grand Lodge" and the national body, "Sovereign Grand Lodge."

The collection contains the records of the Ridgely Lodge No. 9 of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Marianna, Florida. The records include annual returns, certificates of membership, minutes, publications, resolutions and treasurer's receipts.

Collection M84-22: David Levy Yulee Letters, 1844

A native of St. Thomas in the West Indies, David Levy (Yulee) served as a delegate from the Territory of Florida to the United States Congress from 1841 to 1845. In 1845, he became one of the first two United States Senators from the State of Florida. He was the first Jewish person to hold that office. However, prior to holding office, he petitioned the Florida Assembly for permission to legally change his name to David Levy Yulee so he took his seat in the Senate as David L. Yulee.

The collection contains letters sent to David Levy (Yulee) in 1844, while he was representing the Territory of Florida in the United State Congress. The letters are replies to his request for information on how the acquisition of school lands was handled and financed in their state. The correspondents are Isaac E. Crary of Michigan Cyrus Edwards of Illinois Phillip Lindsley of Tennessee and A. G. Brown of Mississippi.

Collection M86-41: Records of Pisgah United Methodist Church (Leon County), 1830-1956

Pisgah United Methodist Church, located eleven miles northeast of Tallahassee in Leon County, Florida, is recognized as one of the oldest Methodist churches in Florida. Missionaries from the South Carolina Methodist Episcopal Conference first held services in the area in the 1820s. The Pisgah mission was organized in 1830 as a Methodist Episcopal Church in the Leon Circuit of the Georgia Conference.

The collection contains a microfilm copy of the registers of members of the Pisgah United Methodist Church and of the quarterly conference records of the Leon Circuit. The registers of members, 1830 to 1956, contain information on church membership, baptisms, and marriages. Of special note in Volume 1 is a list of preachers who served the church from 1830 to 1923. The quarterly conference records of the Leon Circuit contain minutes of the quarterly meetings and reports on the membership, Sunday School programs, finances and other activities of the member churches.

A related collection, M91-12, contains a microfilm copy of earlier records of the Leon Circuit quarterly conferences from 1863 to 1882.

Collection M88-22: Records of Trinity Church of Apalachicola, 1836-1956

Trinity Church was organized as an Episcopal Church in 1835 by Rev. Fitch W. Taylor, from the Diocese of Maryland, who was visiting Florida. In 1837, the Legislative Council passed an Act to incorporate the Episcopal Church in the City of Apalachicola (No. 53, 11 Feb. 1837). The Act provided for the election of two wardens and seven vestrymen, who with the Rector, were empowered to enact laws and regulations for the Church. A white pine building was completed in 1839. On February 15, 1841, the Rt. Rev. James H. Otey, Bishop of Tennessee, administered the rite of confirmation and consecrated Trinity Church.

This collection contains a microfilm copy of church registers, 1836 to 1956, of the Trinity Church located in Apalachicola in Franklin County, Florida. The registers contain records of baptisms, confirmations, marriages and funerals. The microfilm also contains church membership lists and some correspondence.

Collection M88-48: Thomas Holme Hagner Letters, 1830-1848

Thomas Holme Hagner was a successful lawyer and a prominent member of Tallahassee society, having connections with the Eppes, Call, Randolph, Randall, Wirt and DuVal families. Thomas Hagner is believed to have been the first owner and occupant of what is now known as the Knott House. He died there in 1848 at the age of 30 of a lingering liver ailment.

This collection contains typescripts of letters written by Thomas H. Hagner from Tallahassee to his family in Washington, D.C. A few were posted from other North Florida locations, as well as other locations in the Eastern United States. It also includes typescripts of a few letters by his uncle, Thomas Randall, who was a Supreme Court Judge for the Territory of Florida, and a single letter from John G. Gamble, Thomas Hagner's father-in-law, to Peter Hagner, written upon the occasion of Thomas Hagner's death.

The letters are mostly concerned with Hagner's family and professional activities as a lawyers in the Middle District of Florida. While somewhat lacking in local description, the letters do contain information on judicial operations, legal cases, transportation, health, the military and agriculture during the 1830s and 1840s.

Collection M89-32: Daniel H. Wiggins Diaries, 1816-1834, 1838-1841, 1862

Daniel H. Wiggins was born March 14, 1795 in Greenport, Long Island. He came to Florida in 1838, from Annapolis, Maryland, leaving behind his wife and children. He travelled in the company of his friend, Thomas Randall, a former Marylander who moved to Florida in 1827. Upon arriving in Florida, Wiggins stayed with the Randalls at their plantation "Belmont" located in Jefferson County. Wiggins, a millwright, plied his trade in Jefferson and Leon County. Like many other Americans, Wiggins and Judge Randall embarked on a journey to California during the famous 1849 gold rush. However, Wiggins died on board a coastwise steamer and was laid to rest near Umpqua City, Oregon.

The diaries chronicle the life of Daniel H. Wiggins from 1816-1834, while living and working in Baltimore and Annapolis and from 1838-1841, when he journeyed to Florida to establish himself in trade.

The diaries from 1838 to 1841 commence with Wiggins' trip to Florida by steamer. Once in Florida, Wiggins is prolific in detail about his life in and around Leon, Jefferson and Gadsden counties. He relates information about Indian disturbances in and around Jefferson and Leon counties during the 2nd Seminole War. He describes his travels, the people he encounters, and his observations about the growing territory. His interest in machinery is apparent as he provides details and sketches of various agricultural equipment.

The collection also contains an 1862 letterbook of Mary L. Wiggins (relationship unknown) while attending the Female College Institute in Annapolis, Maryland.

Collection M92-1: Papers of the Call and Brevard Families, 1788-1925

Note: The Call-Brevard Family Papers have been digitized and are available on Florida Memory.

Richard Keith Call (1790-1862) was territorial governor of Florida from 1835 to 1840 and again from 1841-1844. Call was the son of William Call and Helen Meade Walker Call and the nephew of Richard Call, who served with distinction in the Revolutionary War. Call's own military service began in 1813 in the Creek War, where he met General Andrew Jackson and subsequently served as Jackson's aide de camp, beginning a lifelong friendship. He visited Florida with Jackson in 1814 and again in 1821 when Jackson established the new American territorial government there. He practiced law in Pensacola and later served as a member of the Legislative Council, delegate to Congress, receiver of the West Florida land office, brigadier general of the West Florida Militia, and territorial governor.

Richard Keith Call married Mary Kirkman (d. 1836) of Nashville, whose parents were enemies of Jackson and bitterly resisted the marriage. The Calls had two daughters, Ellen and Mary. Ellen Call married attorney Medicus Long, and together they had two surviving children, Richard Call Long and Eleanora K. Long ("Nonie"). Three other children died young: Mary Louisa ("Mina") at age 8 Ellen Douglass at age 20 months and son Hugh. Ellen Call Long was active in many civic organizations and activities, including Civil War and Confederate memorial efforts and the Women's Committee of the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia.

Mary Call married Theodore Washington Brevard, Jr., son of Judge Theodorus W. Brevard and Caroline E. Mays Brevard, and grandson of Alexander Brevard. Several children of T. W. Brevard and Mary Call Brevard figure prominently in the Brevard Family Papers, including Caroline Mays Brevard ("Carrie"), Richard Call Brevard ("Call"), Jane Brevard ("Jennie"), Alice Brevard, and Ephraim Brevard ("Ephy" or "Eppy"). Jane Brevard, later Jane Brevard Darby, was the mother of Mary Call Darby Collins, wife of Thomas LeRoy Collins, Governor of Florida from 1955-1961.

This collection contains correspondence, writings and other papers of Richard Keith Call and his family, 1788 to 1916, and Theodore Washington Brevard and Mary Call Brevard and their family, 1820-ca. 1920s. Included are personal and business correspondence financial records land records commissions speeches manuscript poems, articles, books, and other writings newspaper clippings and scrapbooks documenting the personal and public lives of members of the Call and Brevard families. Together, the Call and Brevard Family Papers offer highly significant and unique documentation of Florida's territorial, early statehood, and Civil War history, the development of early Tallahassee, issues and attitudes concerning slavery and race, and the effects of the Civil War on the lives of planters of the Old South.

Collection M93-1: Thomas Fitch Papers, 1818-1836

Note: The Call-Brevard Family Papers have been digitized and are available on Florida Memory.

Thomas Fitch was a lawyer, plantation owner, and slaveholder in South Georgia and East Florida in the early 1800s. He lived in St. Augustine when Florida was ceded to the United States and was appointed to be the first Judge of the new territorial government in that city. However, a yellow fever epidemic came to St. Augustine in 1821, and within days of his appointment as Judge, Thomas Fitch, his wife and children died of the yellow fever.

This collection contains correspondence, invoices, agreements and contracts related to the business and legal activities of Thomas Fitch in South Georgia and East Florida from 1818 until his death in 1821. It also includes papers, dated 1822 to 1836, related to the settlement of his estate, which include an inventory of personal estate, valuation of slaves and record of sale of household effects.

Collection M97-24: Miscellaneous Newspaper Clippings and Letters, 1771-1862

This collection consists of photostatic copies of a variety of letters, newspaper clippings, and a resolution. The letters were written by various settlers and immigrants in Pensacola and Tallahassee, ranging from 1771 to 1848. The topics cover many of the issues facing Floridians during this time frame, including territorial issues of American relations with the Spanish in Pensacola, problems with Indians in Florida and Georgia, the primitive living conditions in Tallahassee, cost of slaves and problems with farming and growing cotton in Leon County. The personal recollections of the early settlers are probably the more interesting parts of this collection and would be of interest to historians studying early Florida history.

Other material of interest in this collection are copies of various newspaper clippings from a number of national newspapers, ranging from 1817 to 1862. Topics include the occupation of Florida by General Andrew Jackson, Indian attacks in Florida and Georgia, and Civil War action at Santa Rosa Island near Pensacola. In addition, there is a resolution from 1835 by the citizens of Shell Point, condemning interference by northern abolitionists in the affairs of the South.

Collection N2005-9: Blackshear, Pittman, White, Dickens and Drew Family Papers, 1700s-1970s

This collection is made up of correspondence, personal papers, business papers, photographs and other miscellaneous materials of the Blackshear, Pittman, White, Dickens and Drew Families of Jackson County, Florida and Laurens County, Georgia.

The collection provides unique documentation of business and family life in northwest Florida and southwest Georgia from the antebellum era through the mid-20th century.

Organized into multiple subseries:

Subseries 1: Correspondence, 1809 to 1970s. This series consists of personal correspondence, legal correspondence, and other related papers of the Blackshear, Pittman, White, Dickens Drew and related families. The personal letters discuss a wide range of topics including family relations, genealogy, weather, health, food, travel, education and school, opinions about the Civil War and family members military service.

Subseries 2: Business Correspondence, 1822 to 1970s. This series consists of business correspondence and includes letters, receipts, promissory notes, bills of exchange, bills of lading, invoices, ledgers and account statements. The business correspondence includes details of the cotton and slave trade along the Apalachicola, Chipola and Chattahoochee Rivers, as well as banking transactions in middle and west Florida. Much of the correspondence documents the mercantile, farming, cotton, and business interest of Thomas M. White, a wealthy businessman, banker, politician and landowner in Jackson County. Also of interest are letters and documents pertaining to unpaid debts, land ownership, financial problems and running for political office.

Subseries 3: Frog Level Plantation Correspondence, 1850 to 1876. This series consists of letters between various family members of the Blackshear family at Frog Level Plantation in Laurens County, Georgia. Included are letters between Edward J. Blackshear, Mary Jane Pittman Blackshear (E.J. Blackshear's wife), Martha Pittman (Mary Jane Pittman's mother), Mary Blackshear (E.J. and Mary Jane's daughter) and other family members.

Subseries 4: Genealogical Materials, 1700s to 1950s. This series consists of genealogical materials of the families contained in the collection. This includes the major families as well as related families. Among the families discussed are the Blackshear, Bryan, Bugg, Dickens, Drew, Milton, Pittman, Smith and White families. There are several genealogy charts of interest which help to detail the various family lineages.

Subseries 5: Photographs, 1850s to 1950s. This series consists of photographs from two albums. The photographs are of the Blackshear, Dickens, Estes, Pittman White and related families. While some of the photographs were labeled, many of the photographs are unidentified.

Subseries 6: Miscellaneous Materials, 1820s to 1970s. This series includes newspapers, newspaper clippings, pamphlets, poems, sewing patterns, speeches, reports, land records, plat maps, church newsletters, a family bible, the book "Marse Ned: the Story of an Old Southern Family" and related materials, and John D. Pittman's autograph book from the University of Virginia.

The autograph book is of special interest. Dated 1861, the autograph book contains illustrations from the university campus, a brief history of the university, lists of professors and benefactors, illustrations of professors, and entries addressed to John D. Pittman by fellow students. All of the entries were written in April 1861, only a few days after the beginning of the Civil War. The entries by fellow students express their friendship for Pittman and, in many cases, comment on the unfolding war. A photocopy of the student entries from the autograph book as well as a typewritten transcript of the entries are included in this series. Due to the fragile condition of the autograph book, research access to the book is restricted to the photocopy and transcript.

Collection N2007-1: Pope Family Papers

This collection consists of a small number of documents of the Pope Family of Sneads, Florida, including an 1820 slave bill of sale land grant to William S. Pope dated May 15, 1829 copy of a letter dated May 3, 1833, addressed to "Judge Pope" from "Colonel Blunt, Chief of Apalachicola Band of Indians," asking for Pope's assistance "as our agent" in retrieving money and goods stolen from him in an attack on his house Confederate 20-dollar bill, 1864 title search documentation/abstract of title for "T.H. Pope and wife Ruby H." for a mortgage on 150 acres of Jackson County land, 1918 pencil-drawn map of the Pope Lake area (undated, but U.S. Highway 90 and County Road 269 through Chattahoochee are shown) and handwritten genealogy notes, 20th century.

Collection N2013-5: Richard Keith Call Papers

Note: These documents were digitized in 2013 as part of a partnership with the Florida Historical Society in Cocoa Beach, which owns the original records. The Richard Keith Call Papers are available on Florida Memory on the Collections page.

Richard Keith Call was the third and fifth territorial governor of Florida. He came to Florida in 1814 as a soldier with General Andrew Jackson. Serving as personal aide to Jackson, Call helped set up Florida's territorial government at Pensacola in 1821. The next year, he started a law practice there. Successively, he was a member of the Legislative Council Delegate to Congress Receiver of the West Florida Land Office Brigadier General of the West Florida Militia and Territorial Governor.

This collection contains official and personal correspondence and other papers regarding Florida history collected by Richard Keith Call and Ellen Call Long and a Journal of Richard Keith Call comprised of family papers possibly assembled and transcribed by Ellen Call Long, accompanied by her narrative history.


A Look At The Record:

This was no ordinary fishing run for the fifty small boats that entered the Florida Strait from Key West on a late April morning last year. Their course was south by southwest to Mariel, 110 miles distant on the northern coast of Cuba. Their mission: to rescue an unknown number of political refugees who had unexpectedly been granted exit visas by Fidel Castro.

In the weeks that followed, the fifty-boat squadron was joined by hundreds of other vessels of every size and condition, their passage financed by public funds and by members of the Cuban community in Miami. For more than five months the “freedom flotilla” plied the Caribbean, bearing its human cargo to the American mainland. By the end of September, when Castro barred further emigration, 125,000 exiles had reached reception centers in Florida, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania.

At the same time, another exodus had taken place from Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest on earth. Between January and late August of 1980, more than 14,000 refugees had crossed the Caribbean to Florida in open, wooden boats, many of them dangerously overloaded and underprovisioned. One small craft, carrying a hundred passengers, had drifted for two weeks in the broiling sun before it was located and towed to safety by a Coast Guard cutter. Like the Cubans, the Haitians spoke bitterly of the hardship and oppression they had left behind. America, they said, offered them freedom and opportunity unavailable elsewhere they were willing to risk everything for the new life the nation might provide.

The admission of such refugees has been replicated over and over again through our history: in 1975 when 120,000 Vietnamese were flown here in the two weeks that followed Saigon’s fall in the “freedom flights” which brought upward of 300,000 Cubans to Florida between 1965 and 1970 in 1956 when 21,000 Hungarians were airlifted to New Jersey in the aftermath of their abortive uprising indeed, as long ago as 1793 when nearly 20,000 French exiles from revolution in Santo Domingo sought refuge in Pennsylvania. (The exiles were so destitute that the Pennsylvania Assembly authorized a public subscription on their behalf Congress voted $15,000 for the cause.) As Thomas Paine had written in Common Sense , it was America’s unique destiny to “receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.”

That willingness to welcome the stranger, to offer sanctuary to the oppressed, is firmly based on the democratic ideology of the American Revolution, but it represents as well a pragmatic recognition of the central fact in our existence as a people: since the first Indians crossed the Bering Strait thousands of years ago, the American population has consisted solely of immigrants and their descendants. Immigrants from some 106 distinct ethnic groups—no one of which constitutes more than one-seventh of the whole—have transformed our land, shaped our institutions, defined our principles, and formed—in the words of Charles Andrews—”a polychrome, polyglot community” without parallel in history.

FROM A TRICKLE TO A TIDAL WAVE

The migration that produced this pluralism is the largest part of a continuing mass movement that far surpasses in magnitude the legendary journeys of the ancient tribes of Israel or of the wandering Germans in the waning days of the Roman Empire. Since 1600 more than 74,000,000 emigrants have abandoned their homelands worldwide. More than two-thirds of them—some 50,000,000—have come to the United States. (Nearly a tenth—over 7,000,000— have migrated to Canada, the second-ranked “receiver” state.) Not all of them remained here perhaps 9,000,000 or so merely passed through on their way elsewhere or, after a time, returned home. Nonetheless, our net population gain through immigration, from 1607 to the present, is upward of 40,000,000 men, women, and children who came here in hopes that this might be, as Emerson once wrote, “the country of the Future … a country of beginnings. …”

Initially their numbers were few. In the two hundred years that followed Jamestown’s settlement, immigration was a thin stream flowing out of Europe at irregular intervals. Historians estimate that well under a million immigrants—perhaps as few as 400,000—crossed the Atlantic during those two centuries, and some scholars believe that the growth of the nation’s population—3,900,000 in the first census of 1790— was largely the result of natural increase and not of a great influx of the foreign-born. But in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, which had served to bar widespread emigration, the European rivulet became a river and then a flood.

Starting in 1820, when a mere 8,385 people (most of them male) passed through the eastern ports of entry, immigration increased decade after decade in quantum jumps. By 1830 annual arrivals numbered 23,322, and a visiting Frenchman wrote glowingly of “the great flood of civilization” that was pouring over the American landscape “with a wonderful power and an admirable regularity. ” In 1840, a total of 84,066 newcomers landed in 1850 the number had risen to 369,980. Between 1820 and 1860 some 5,000,000 immigrants crossed the seas, their number surpassing in four decades the total 1790 population it had taken nearly two centuries to achieve. With justifiable pride, Oliver Wendell Holmes exulted, “We are the Romans of the modern world—the great assimilating people.”

And still the flood rolled on: 2,300,000 arrivals during the 1860’s 2,800,000 in the 1870’s. By 1880 it seemed to some observers that the whole earth was on the move as the human flood became a tidal wave. In the next forty-four years, upward of 25,900,000 men, women, and children were carried to the American shore.

Then, in 1924, it ended. Bowing to pressures that had been building since late in the nineteenth century—from labor, from nativist groups, from state and local leaders, who protested that the nation could no longer absorb so many newcomers—Congress voted to end three hundred years of open immigration. Revising an earlier law (passed in 1921) that had set a maximum annual quota, Congress now established a rigid system, based on national origins, that limited immigration to an annual ceiling of 150,000 entrants, almost all drawn from northern Europe and the British Isles.

The 1924 law took effect five years later when Congress set up an elaborate quota system based upon the 1790 census. Beginning in 1931, immigration totals dropped below 100,000 annually for the first time since 1862 and remained below that figure until 1946. Despite subsequent policy modifications in the postwar years, immigration continued to be restricted, and although some 14,000,000 persons entered the country between 1925 and 1980, annual immigrant totals never again approached the extraordinary levels of the earlier age. To all intents and purposes, the mass migrations that gave the country its special character are now a thing of the past.

Since 1920 the native-born population of the United States has steadily increased from 86.8 per cent to an estimated 95.8 per cent in 1980.

1907 was the peak immigration year. A total of 1,285,349 persons entered the country. In 1933 just 23,068 arrived, the lowest number since 1831 and the record for this century.

From 1607 to 1924 immigrants totaled about 36,500,000 from 1925 to 1970, about 9,200,000 from 1971 to 1980 an estimated 4,900,000.

Since 1968 immigration quotas have permitted a maximum of 170,000 immigrants to enter annually from countries outside the Western Hemisphere (there is a 20,000 ceiling for any one country) and a maximum of 120,000 immigrants annually from countries within the Western Hemisphere on a first-come, first-served basis. Selected categories (“immediate relatives” of U.S. citizens or “special immigrants” designated by Congress) are granted entry as nonquota immigrants.

In recent years legal immigration has averaged about 400,000 per year. In 1980 some 800,000 immigrants entered legally, reflecting the refugee status extended by the government to Cubans, Haitians, and Cambodians.

The number of illegal entrants is unknown estimates range from 1,000,000 to 8,000,000 total during the last decade. The Immigration and Naturalization Service arrests and deports as many as 500,000 border-crossers each year, most of them unskilled workers from Mexico.

Despite this century’s restrictive legislation, the United States continues to receive hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year, with expectations and uncertainties probably no different from those of their predecessors in the era of mass immigration. What makes their experience different are changes in the immigration laws over the past fifteen years that have dramatically altered both the traditional patterns of immigration and the ethnic composition of the immigrant population.

Nineteenth-century immigration was essentially European. In the years before 1885 most immigrants came from north of the Alps and west of the Elbe River (the so-called old immigration). After 1885 the greatest number came from Southern and Eastern Europe, notably from Italy and Russia (the “new immigration”). The quota laws after World War I generally confirmed and, in the case of the “old immigration,” exaggerated that pattern, for the national-origins system was deliberately rigged to favor Northern Europeans over Southern and both at the expense of all others. Since 1968, when the national-origins system was abolished, a significant shift has taken place.

In the period from 1820 to 1978 gross immigration totals, according to the latest published data, show the distribution on the chart opposite.

The rapid growth of immigration from Asia in the past decade, which these figures reveal, is a result of the abolition of both the national-origins system and a series of exclusionary laws that date back to 1882, when the Chinese were expressly denied the right to enter the United States or to seek citizenship.

Similar discrimination was later extended to the Japanese, and the Immigration Act of 1924 reaffirmed the principle of racial exclusion for all Asians, barring them from seeking citizenship and, because they were so barred, also denying them entry as immigrants.

In 1943, in the midst of World War II, the 1924 act was repealed for the Chinese alone, and they were assigned an annual quota of 105. Nine years later the McCarran-Walter Act removed all restrictions for other Asians as well but kept the quotas at token levels: 185 for Japan, 105 for China, and 100 for each country in an area designated the Asia-Pacific Triangle.

The removal of all barriers—other than the fixed total of 170,000 immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere—in the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 (effective 1968) produced immediate and remarkable results. In the fortyyear span from 1920 to 1960 Asian immigrants accounted for roughly 3 per cent of the immigrant total in 1978 the comparable figure was 40.5 per cent. In 1965, there were 300 immigrants from India, compared with 19,100 thirteen years later. In the eight-year period from 1971 to 1978, over 206,700 Koreans migrated to America, five times as many as had arrived in the preceding twenty years.

But it was the European wave of the last century that provided the broad base of the nation’s current population. Although an Immigration Service survey of 800,000 immigrants in New York State in 1979 identified individuals from 164 different countries or dependencies, five nationalities account for over half of the immigrant total since 1820 (through 1978), and another six contributed one-quarter of the whole.

The factors that compelled this mass migration were undoubtedly as varied as the individuals involved. Political and religious motives played a part (as in the extensive migration of the Jews out of Russia during the pogroms at the end of the nineteenth century). But the main reason was probably economic, for the ebb and flow of the immigrant wave is keyed to the rise and fall of the American economy in any given period before the quota system was established in 1924.

The marked surge in immigration after 1850 can be tied to several concurrent developments, among them the introduction of steamships and the safer travel they provided. The industrial growth of the United States and the westward movement together led to a demand for manual labor in the East as the native-born population pushed beyond the Mississippi. At the same time, rapid population growth in Europe (earlier in northern and western countries, later in the southern and eastern) closed traditional avenues of economic advancement. Revolutions, epidemics, and crises like the Irish potato famine were instrumental in the decision of many to emigrate.

Who and what the immigrants were remains subject to popular misconception, however, if only because it is obviously difficult to create a single model for more than 40,000,000 people over a three- or four-hundred-year span. Nevertheless, much of the pressure to build restrictive legislation, notably the national-origins system after 1924, was generated by stereotyping. The poverty which many immigrants experienced in their early years in the country was often automatically equated—in a time-worn American formulation—with shiftlessness. Broken English or a foreign tongue signified low intelligence. Unfamiliar customs or styles of dress were cause for derision or complaint.

Ironically, that stereotype of the European peasant has been permanently carved into the base of the Statue of Liberty in the unintentionally condescending lines of Emma Lazarus’ poem that speaks of the tired, the poor, the “wretched refuse” of Europe’s teeming shores.

Undoubtedly there were many who were unfitted for settling in a new land, but in general, immigration was not for the faint-hearted, the unimaginative, or the dull. As George Santayana once pointed out, most immigrants had exercised a kind of self-selection: the lazy, the rich, and the wellconnected remained at home. The immigrants were those whose “wilder instincts,” Santayana wrote, “tempted them beyond the horizon. The American is accordingly the most adventurous, or the descendant of the most adventurous, of Europeans.”

It could not have been otherwise. As Oscar Handlin wrote in his classic, The Uprooted (1951), “America was the land of separated men,” who were forced to make the painful transition from “the tried old to the untried new.” They were strong enough to bear leaving friends and family behind, to endure steerage, and to enter nakedly into an alien culture where language, custom—even the forms of work—were unfamiliar.

Nearly half of all immigrants have reported their occupational status on entry. Of those reporting from 1820 to 1920, only 1.5 per cent were professionals. Farmers or farm laborers made up 23.6 per cent, and 20.2 per cent were nonfarm manual laborers. Those identified as skilled craftsmen or as engaged in commerce constituted 11.2 per cent. Another 43.4 per cent were recorded as general labor or household servants.

Comparable categories reported from 1971 to 1978 include 10.2 per cent professional, 2.7 per cent managerial, 5.0 per cent skilled craftsman, 3.8 per cent clerical, 3.7 per cent manual labor, and 1.6 per cent farm labor. (In this period, 60 per cent of the immigrants listed no occupation on entry.)

TRYING TO LEGISLATE THE TIDE

Unlike the French and Spanish who contended with them for empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the English came to America to stay. After several false starts, Parliament, in 1618, settled on three key policies—applied in time in every New World colonial venture: 1) land was made easily available to almost all settlers at relatively low cost 2) the rights of English settlers were the same as those who remained in England and 3) a measure of political freedom—gradually expanded as the colonies developed- was provided in representative assemblies and later, in New England, in the town meetings. All three helped attract substantial numbers of settlers.

Both the home government and the colonial assemblies eagerly recruited colonists and readily extended citizenship, landowning rights, and other civil protections to them. In 1740 Parliament ruled that any alien who had resided on British territory for seven consecutive years was entitled to full citizenship.

To encourage migration, the various governments established protections for indentured servants, those who sold themselves into bound service for two to seven years in return for passage. At the conclusion of their contract, such persons were given full freedom and civil rights. Called redemptioners, they are estimated to have composed between 60 and 77 per cent of the immigrants through 1776.

After the Revolution the Founding Fathers viewed immigration with the same ambivalence that continues today. Alexander Hamilton argued in 1791 that it was of primary importance “to open every possible avenue to emigration from abroad …” because the newcomers, skilled artisans in particular, would provide useful, productive labor and encourage the rapid expansion of American manufacturing. Moreover, as George Washington put it, there was an ideological commitment to actively seek out “not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions. …”

On the other hand, there was the lingering fear expressed by Thomas Jefferson that the fugitives might carry with them the very contagion of tyranny and despotism they had fled Europe to avoid. En masse, he believed, they would threaten the republican virtues of the government, introduce turbulence, and turn the nation into “a heterogenious [sic], incoherent, distracted mass. ” While individual artisans would be most welcome (“Spare no expense in obtaining them … they will teach us something we do not know”), he argued that no “extraordinary encouragements” should be given to mass immigration.

For most of the century, the federal government set no limitations on immigration, while some thirty states actively recruited overseas. The only barriers, in fact, were those erected by European states. (England, for example, prohibited the emigration of skilled artisans until 1820.) But as the century wore on, population pressures in Europe encouraged foreign states to assist those who wished to leave, as did the British and Irish authorities who helped Irish emigrants flee the great famine of 1846.

The federal government generally assumed an overseer’s role (as Parliament had in colonial times) leaving most of the responsibility for enforcing immigration and naturalization laws to the states. In 1790 Congress set a two-year residency requirement for citizenship. (The naturalization period was briefly extended to fourteen years in 1798—by the Federalist majority in Congress, who were alarmed at the eagerness with which immigrants were joining the Democrats.) With Jefferson’s inaguration in 1801, the residency requirement was set at five years—where it has remained since.

By 1855 nearly two-thirds of all immigrants were entering the country through New York. (By the end of the century, that figure would rise to three-fourths.) The reception center was Castle Garden, a converted opera house at the tip of Manhattan that provided a hospital, a low-cost restaurant, and free baths. Incredibly it was run as a volunteer operation, its unpaid staff offering a wide range of employment and housing services. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the volume of immigration threatened to overwhelm the states, and, responding to demands for increased federal participation, Congress passed a comprehensive law in 1882 that opened the way to a complete federal take-over. Within a decade, the government had created a permanent Immigration Service with broad powers to set health standards, to manage immigration law, and to arrange deportation proceedings for any aliens who failed to meet the required criteria for entry. In 1892 Ellis Island was opened on the site of an old naval arsenal as the principal reception center.

THE LEADING “SENDER” STATES, 1820-1978

Beginning with the 1882 law, the government gradually developed a policy of restricted immigration. For the first time, Congress established strict standards of admissibility. As we have seen, Chinese immigrants were barred outright so were convicts, “lunatics,” and persons likely to become public charges. In 1891 the list was extended to include polygamists, persons with “loathsome or contagious diseases,” and contract laborers. Twelve years later anarchists and prostitutes were denied entry. In 1907 the Japanese, like the Chinese, were barred simply because of their race. In 1917 Congress required a literacy test for every immigrant. Any person over sixteen who could not read at least thirty words in English or some other language was to be sent home. By the end of World War I immigration law defined nearly one hundred separate conditions that might make an alien excludable.

In vetoing an earlier literacy bill in 1915, Woodrow Wilson wrote that the nation had, in the past, “generously kept our doors open to all,” excepting those who were clearly unfit by reason of disease or criminal record or the like. Now, he said, Congress was proposing “to turn away from tests of character and of quality and impose tests which exclude and restrict.” Was this, he asked, “the conscious … desire of the American people?”

Within six years he had his answer. In 1921 Congress passed the first of the quota laws, which would dominate immigration policy for the next generation—all designed to reduce the immigrant flow from Southern and Eastern Europe and to prohibit entirely immigration from Asia. The last of these, the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, passed over the veto of President Truman, added a provision empowering the Immigration Service to screen all applicants for signs of “subversive behavior.”

Current policy is contained in the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. There already had been erosion of the quota system through various postwar measures allowing the entry of certain national groups, as in the Displaced Persons directives signed by President Truman in successive years from 1945 to 1952. Moreover, the role America had assumed as “leader of the free world” stood in sharp contrast to the exclusionary policies embodied in immigration law.

The Hart-Celler Act retained an annual quota as necessary to orderly growth but removed the artificial—and often biased—criteria of past admissions practices in favor of broadly based standards that gave all nationalities equal access on a first-come, first-served basis. Extra-quota status was extended to certain classes of immigrants (among them, immediate relatives of naturalized citizens and persons with special technical skills). Other reforms made it easier for the President to admit refugees, as in the Cuban exodus in 1981.

Now more than a decade old, the Hart-Celler Act has changed the face of the immigrant population, three-fourths of whom in recent years have been Asiatics or Latin Americans. Its liberalized provisions for nonquota entry have led to a steady increase in the number of aliens seeking permanent residence and of refugees requesting asylum. From 1978 to 1980 nearly 2,000,000 legal immigrants entered the country, pushing the immigration rate above 2.8 per thousand U.S. population for the first time in half a century. In addition, upward of 1,000,000 aliens illegally crossed the nation’s borders. Responding to public alarm over that sudden surge of immigrants, President Reagan and some members of Congress argued that existing policies were out of control and that the Hart-Celler Act needed revision.

In mid-March, 1981, Senator Walter D. Huddleston of Kentucky introduced a comprehensive reform bill that would limit total immigration to 350,000 aliens a year, eliminate all special-status admissions above that ceiling, and restrict the entry of refugees by forcing the President to admit them under the annual quota or to borrow against future quotas. The Huddleston bill, jointly sponsored by eight other senators, also called for civil and criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens and proposed tripling the size of the Border Patrol to 6,000 officers.

By midsummer, the Reagan administration offered further legislation to deal with illegal border-crossers. Arguing that “no free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life,” Mr. Reagan asked Congress to consider three specific measures: a law to prohibit the hiring of illegal aliens (punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000 for each person so hired) the granting of legal status to the several million illegal aliens already residing here (provided they had entered the United States before January 1, 1980) and the creation of a “guest worker” program whereby 100,000 Mexicans would be admitted over two years to take jobs for which domestic labor was unavailable or in short supply.

As in earlier periods of high unemployment and economic distress, the lines are again drawn between those who argue for sharply reduced quotas and those who invoke the past as evidence that the nation must continue to accept responsibility for the oppressed from other lands. And once again Congress and the President must strike a delicate balance between them.


New York City

New York City was originally a trading post controlled by the Dutch in 1624. It was referred to as New Amsterdam until it the British took control of it 1664 and renamed it, New York, after the current Duke of York.

New York was the United States’ capital from 1785 to 1790. Though it may not have continued being the US’s capital it has remained its largest city since then. It currently has an estimated population of 8.3 million and is the US’s most populous city. For perspective, NYC has more than twice as many residents as LA which is the US’s second-most populous city.

You will quickly find that NYC is the “most” in almost every category. In fact, it is the largest metropolitan area in the world! It is located on one of the world’s largest natural harbors.

One of the characteristics most commonly associated with NYC is its fast pace. There is even a common phrase that comes from this, New York Minute, which alludes to NYC seeming to run on a different measurement of time all-together.

New York is sometimes referred to as Gotham or the Big Apple. Gotham became a common nickname for NYC after Washington Irving used it to describe the city and its people in 1807 in his periodical, Salmagundi. Big Apple was originally in reference to the prizes or “big apples” awarded at many of the horse racing courses around NYC around the 1920s.

Likely, the best-known attraction of NYC and the symbol of America is the Statue of Liberty. Did you know that France gifted it to America to commemorate their alliance during the American Revolution? However, when you start to dig into this the proposing party, financial backers, and designer had some deeper motives in this gift. Largely their hope was to inspire the people of French to demand more freedom for themselves. The statue was shipped as 350 pieces and took four months to assemble once in NYC.

New York is the most linguistically diverse city in the world! Can you believe 800 languages are spoken there?

It is also known for its own distinct regional speech pattern that is sometimes referred to as Brooklynese. It is characterized by the sound not appearing at the end of a syllable or immediately before a consonant. This means they pronounce New York as “New Yawk”. It is considered one of the most recognizable American accents.

59% Christian (33% Roman Catholic and 23% Protestant), 24% no organized religious affiliation (3% atheist), 8% Jewish (more than half of whom live in Brooklyn), and 3% Muslim.

Precolonial era NYC was occupied by Algonquian Native Americans. The first documented visit to New York by a European as Florentine explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano claimed it for the French Crown, in 1524. In 1525 a Spanish expedition came to New York Harbor and chartered the mouth of the Hudson River. Later in 1609 Henry Hudson, an English explorer, rediscovered New York Harbor when he was looking for the Northwest Passage to the Orient for the Dutch East India Company.

New York had a permanent European presence from 1624. It was a fur trading post controlled by the Dutch. It was referred to as New Amsterdam until it the British took control of it 1664 and renamed it, New York, after the current Duke of York.

In 1785 New York City was made the US capital. George Washington was inaugurated there, the first Congress and Supreme Court assembled for the first time there, and the Bill of Rights was drafted on Wall Street! In 1790 it surpassed Philadelphia and became the largest city in the US. However, in spite of that by the end of that year, the US capital was moved to Philadelphia.

Brooklyn which was previously a separate city was merged with the counties of New York, Richmond, and Queens to form the modern city of New York in 1898. Later in 1904, the opening of the subway system helped to bind this newly formed city.

In the early 1920s, it became the most populous urbanized area in the world (overtaking London). By the 1930s it became the first megacity in human history with more than 10 million people in the metropolitan area.

Battles, Movements, And Terrorism

Colonial Times: 1647-1702

Peter Stuyvesant started his position as the last Director-General of New Netherland in 1647, but by 1664 he surrendered the area to Colonel Richard Nicolls and his English troops (without bloodshed). During Stuyvesant’s time, the population grew from 2,000 to 8,000. In the terms of his surrender, he ensured the Dutch residents could remain in the colony and would be allowed religious freedom. The English renamed the city New York.

American Revolution in New York: 1776

Starting in 1765 and lasting for 10 years, the Sons of Liberty clashed with the British troops stationed there.

In August of 1776, the largest battle of the American Revolution (the Battle of Long Island) took place in modern-day Brooklyn. The British won this battle and quickly made New York their military and political base. The British Crown promised freedom to all fighters, attracting nearly 10,000 escaped slaved into the city. An attempt at a peaceful resolution was made that September at the Conference House on Staten Island (delegates included Benjamin Franklin).

Stonewall Riots – Legalization of Same-Sex Marriages: June 1969 to June 2011

These riots were spontaneous and violent demonstrations by members of the gay community against the police raid that took place in the early morning of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. They are considered the most important event leading to the gay liberation movement and the fight of LGBT rights that we see today.

Present-day New York City is home to a community of an estimated 570,000 gay and bisexual individuals, which makes it the largest in the US and one of the largest in the world.

On June 24, 2011, same-sex marriages were legalized.

September 11 th , 2001

Two highjacked airplanes were flown into the two towers of the World Trade Center. This destroyed the towers and killed 2,192 civilians, 343 firefighters, and 71 law enforcement officers. The North Tower now is the tallest building ever to be destroyed anywhere.

In November 2014, One World Trade Center was opened in the place of its predecessors. It is the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere and the 6 th tallest in the world. Its spire reaches 1,776 feet which is a reference to the year of US independence. The area also has a 9/11 memorial and museum.

The area’s subway terminal was also destroyed. In 2016, an 800,000 square feet terminal named the World Trade Center Transportation Hub was completed in its place and became the city’s third-largest hub.

Occupy Wall Street Protests: September 17, 2011

These protests in Zuccotti Park in the Financial District received global attention and spread the message of the Occupy movement which stood against social and economic inequality.

Immigrant Populations

With more than 3.2 million of its residents born outside the US, New York has the world’s largest foreign-born population of any city.

New York has long been a major port of entry for immigrants to the US. Ellis Island just off the coast of Manhattan received more than 12 million European Immigrants from 1892 to 1924. The densely populated immigrant neighborhoods in the Lower East Side are where the term Melting Pot was first created. By 1900 Germans were the largest immigrant population followed by Irish, Jews, and Italians.

As of 2013, more than half of all children born in the city are born to immigrant mothers. No longer does any single country region of origin dominate.

Dutch Americans

It was the Dutch that established the first colony in this area in 1624. However, during the hundred years of British rule that followed Dutch immigration to America came to almost a complete stop.

English Americans

The English captured the area in 1664 and began their permanent occupation a decade later. In the 2012 census, it was estimated that were roughly 137,000 English Americans in the area.

Italian Americans

Pietro Caesare Alberti, in 1635, became the first Italian to reside in New York which was a Dutch colony at the time.

In the late 19 th and early 20 th century, New York saw the largest wave of Italian immigration to the US. From 1820-1978 a total of 5.3 million Italians immigrated to the US. The largest wave which occurred from 1880 to 1914 brought 4 million Italians to the US. These Italians were mostly from Southern Italian provinces that were mostly rural, agricultural, and impoverished by centuries of foreign misrule and the heavy tax burdens imposed after the Italian unification in 1861. After the unification, Italy actually encouraged emigration to ease its economic pressures in the south. After the American Civil War ended in 1865 and resulted in half a million Americans wounded or killed, America recruited immigrant workers from Italy and elsewhere to fill the labor shortage.

There have been several neighborhoods of NYC known as “Little Italy” and many featured people from different regions of Italy on each cross street. Italian immigrants preferred to live nearest to people from the same region of Italy.

In the 2000 census, 692,739 were of Italian ancestry, making them the largest European ethnic group in the city.

Irish Americans

Over 200,000 Irish immigrants were living in New York by 1860, making up almost a quarter of the city’s population. The Great Irish Famine which lasted from 1845 to 1849 brought a large number of Irish immigrants.

During the American Civil War (1861-1865) wealthy men could pay the equivalent of what would be $6,229 today to hire someone to go to war in their place. The most visible participants were the Irish working class, which led to the Draft Riots of 1863. The riots became attacks on New York’s elite and led to attacks on black New Yorkers because of a decade of fierce competition for work between the two groups. It was one of the worst periods of civil unrest in American history. By 1865, New York’s black population fell below 10,000 (it hadn’t been so low since 1820) and the white working-class established dominance.

In the 2012 Census, there were approximately 385,000 Irish Americans in the city.

German Americans

Escaping economic hardship, political unrest, riots, rebellion, and eventually a revolution in 1848 brought more than a million Germans to the US from 1845-1855. In 1855 New York had the world’s third-largest population of Germans, only outranked by Berlin and Vienna. By 1860 Germans made up 25% of New York’s population.

Differing from other immigrant populations, the Germans were usually educated with desired skills and crafts. They frequently assumed jobs as bakers and cabinet makers, worked in the construction business or played major roles in the growth of trade unions.

In the 2012 Census, there were approximately 253,000 German Americans in the city.

African Americans

Though a small portion of the city’s African Americans were voluntary immigrants from the Caribbean, Latin America, and modern Sub-Saharan African nations the majority were forcibly abducted from their villages in West and Central Africa and brought to America as slaves. After the abolition of slavery in New York in 1827, NYC became the largest pre-Civil War urban concentration of free African-Americans. Many organizations were established during this time in NYC to advance the community.

In the late 19 th century and early 20 th century with the rise of violence in relation to Jim Crow laws in the south, there was a mass migration of African Americans to New York City. At this same time, there was a transition happening in NYC which saw the center of African American power and demography shift from other districts to Harlem.

By 1916 NYC has had the largest urban African diaspora in all North America. In the 1920s African Americans of NYC experienced a boom in literary and cultural life known as the Harlem Renaissance.

In the 2010 Census, there were over 2 million black residents in the city. Making it the largest black population of any US city.

Russian American

For 36 years beginning in 1881, the US experienced the largest wave of Jewish immigrants. It followed the assassination of Alexander II of Russia which was largely blamed on “the Jews”. These were also the first Russian immigrants to the US. They also came during the 1917 Russian Revolution. Russian (Soviet) Jews also migrated during the 1970s, after Jews began to be granted exit visas in growing numbers. Most of the Jews leaving Russia at this time went to either Israel or the US.

Another wave of Russians arrived in NYC after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This wave had a greater mix of ethnic Russians and Russian Christians.

NYC is still the leading gateway for Russian immigrants into the US.

In the 2012 Census, there were approximately 223,000 Russian Americans in the city. Approximately 100,000 of whom were born in Russia.

Jewish Americans

In the early 1800s, there was an influx of German and Polish Jews following the Napoleonic wars.

In the mid-1800s Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish Jews immigrated in large numbers.

Many of the German Jews were wealthy by this time and moved to uptown Manhattan to get away from the Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe and other immigrants settling in the Lower East Side. However, many of these Eastern European immigrants worked for these “uptown” German Jews in their factories.

Sephardic Jews (including Syrian Jews) have lived in NYC since the late 1800s.

For 36 years beginning in 1881, the US experienced the largest wave of Jewish immigrants (2 million), more than 1 million of which went to NYC. It followed the assassination of Alexander II of Russia which was largely blamed on “the Jews”.

In the 1980s and 1990s, there was another wave of Jewish immigrants (Ashkenazi and Bukharian Jews) coming from what was the Soviet Union.

In the 2012 Census, there were approximately 1.5 million Jewish Americans in the city, 13% of the city’s population. This makes it the largest Jewish and Israeli community outside of Israel. It is comprised of many diverse sects, most of which are from the Middle East and Eastern Europe. It is also home to a rapidly growing Orthodox Jewish population, which is also the largest outside of Israel.

Caribbean Americans

The largest number of black immigrants, in the early 1900s, were English-speaking Caribbeans who settled mainly in NYC. Many of these were young, unmarried men.

Though most Caribbeans were Anglican they were denied entry to white Episcopal churches so they formed their own such as Saint Augustine and Christ Church Cathedral.

In the 20 th and 21 st centuries, there have been large numbers of people coming to NYC from Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago.

During the US occupation in Haiti in the 1920s and 1930s, many migrated and established communities in Harlem where they joined the many African Americans who were contributing to the Harlem Renaissance.

Large waves of Haitians arrived from 1957 to 1986 during the Duvalier era until Baby Doc was ousted.

Statistics estimate there are 186,000 Jamaicans and 156,000 Haitians in NYC. However, it is believed the number of Jamaicans is closer to 600,000 and Haitians closer to 400,000.

Chinese Americans

Chinese immigrants are documented to have first arrived in NYC in the 1830s and to have been sailors and peddlers. Through the 1800s many Chinese immigrants settled in Lower Manhattan. In the 1870s a wave arrived searching for gold.

In 1882 a Chinese Exclusion Act was put in place and declined the number of Chinese immigrants until it was lifted in 1968 and the population skyrocketed.

NYC’s famous Chinatown is divided into two parts, the western and the older part is dominated by Cantonese, and the eastern and newer part which is mostly Fujian. The earlier Chinese settlers were Cantonese and came from Hong Kong, Taishan, and Shanghai.

In the 2012 Census, 6.3% of New York City’s population was Chinese Americans, the largest population of ethnic Chinese outside of Asia.

Arab Americans

In the 1880s and 1940s, NYC had a neighborhood called Little Syria. It was mostly populated by Christians who emigrated from an area that is known today as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine from 1880 to 1924. Most were Arab speaking and were escaping religious persecution and poverty in their homelands that were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. This neighborhood was NYC's first community of Middle Eastern immigrants and was home to the famous writer Kahlil Gibran among other cultural, educational, and journalistic minds.

The second wave of Arab immigrants arrived in NYC after 1965 as citizens of the sovereign nations Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. Many of the immigrants in this second wave were Muslim.

There are now more than a hundred mosques to serve Muslims in NYC, however, Christian Arabs still outnumber Muslim Arabs. Both religious identity and nationality have greatly shaped the borders of NYC’s current Arab communities.

In the 2012 Census, there were approximately 160,000 Arab Americans in the city, with the highest concentration in Brooklyn. They represent more than 12 nationalities and 3 major religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani & Sri Lankan Americans

In 1964 Indians were able to become naturalized as US citizens which lead to the exponential growth of Indian immigrants in the US. Prior to that many Indian Americans came to the US via Indian communities in other nations. Some of these countries include the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Mauritius, Malaysia, Singapore, Suriname, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Jamaica. Prior to 1964 most Indians in America were working in agriculture or constructing railroads, but afterward most consisted of physicians, engineers, financiers, scientists, entrepreneurs, lawyers, and businesspeople. NYC is home to 20% of the US’s Indian American population and has more than 20 Little India neighborhoods.

Since the 1970s Bangladeshis have been able to legally migrate to the US through the Diversity Visa Program/Lottery. 2011 statistics report there are over 74,000 the Bangladeshi Americans in NYC.

2006 statistics report there are 60,000 Pakistani Americans in NYC. It is the largest concentration of Pakistani Americans in any US city.

Staten Island has developed one of the largest Sri Lankan communities outside Sri Lanka. It is estimated that there are at least 5,000 Sri Lankan Americans on Staten Island alone.

Latino Americans

Puerto Ricans have been in NYC since the mid-19 th century when Puerto Rico was still a Spanish Colony. After the Spanish American War in 1898 and Puerto Rico became a US possession a large wave of Puerto Ricans migrated to New York. However, the largest migration happened in the 1950s. Currently, the population of Puerto Rican Americans in NYC is around 800,000.

Dominican Americans are the fifth-largest national group in NYC, behind Irish, Italian, German, and Puerto Rican. It was estimated in 2009 that they make up almost 25% of NYC’s Latino Population. In 2006 there were 609,885 in NYC. There are records of Dominicans in the US from the late 19 th century and NYC has had a community since 1970. After the fall of the Rafael Trujillo military regime in the 1960s, they migrated in large waves.

Mexicans are the third-largest Latino population in NYC making up about 14% of the total Latino population of the city. The remaining 23% are from countries in Central and South America.

Recent statistics report NYC’s Latino population around 2.5 million or 29% of the city’s population. It is estimated that 58% of this population were born in the US and 42% were born outside the US.

After WWII there was a post-war economic boom with many housing developments. New York emerged as the leading city of the world and Wall Street leading America’s place the world’s dominant economic power. The UN headquarters which was complete in 1952 in NYC made it a source of global geopolitical influence. The rise of abstract expressionism led to NYC displacing Paris as the center of the art world.

The 1970s and industrial restructuring brought job losses, economic problems, and rising crime rates. While the 1980s brought financial growth crime rates continued to increase until the early 1990s when police strategies were revised, and economic opportunities were improved.

Present-day New York is home to the highest number of billionaires of any city in the world, but it also has 78.676 homeless people as of 2018.

It is home to two of the world’s largest stock exchanges and is the most financially powerful city in the world. It is a global hub for banking, finance, retail, world trade, transportation, tourism, real estate, new media, traditional media, advertising, legal services, accountancy, medical research, insurance, theater, fashion, and the arts. Many Fortune 500 companies are headquartered here. NYC’s port is also a major economic engine for the city. Another major economic force is the Real Estate market with the city’s property being accessed at $1.072 trillion total value in 2017. Another vital industry to NYC is Tourism which generated $61.3 billion in overall economic impact in 2014.

Infostructure, Urban Planning & Architecture

The city receives its drinking water from the Catskill Mountains watershed which has undisturbed natural water filtration. This makes NYC one of only four major cities in the US that has drinking water pure enough to not require purification by water treatment plants.

In 1857 Central Park was established and became the first landscaped park in an American city. It was lobbied for by the city’s elite.

The city is one of the easier to navigate, even if you’re a tourist, because of its grid layout which was expanded to encompass most of Manhattan when the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811 was adopted.

NYC has the third most high-rise building in the world (after Hong Kong and Seoul) with 6,455 as of 2019.

New York has iconic representations of various styles of architecture. Dutch Colonial architecture can be seen in the Pieter Claesen Wyckoff House (1652) in Brooklyn. New York’s large residential neighborhoods are often defined by their brownstone rowhouses that are designed in the Italianate style. They were built during a time of rapid expansion from 1870 to 1930. The Woolworth Building (1913) is an early example of the Gothic Revival in skyscraper design. Art Deco can be seen in the Chrysler Building (1930) and Empire State Building (1931). One World Trade Center (2014)and Solomon R Guggenheim Museum (1959) are examples of Contemporary Modern architecture.


Refugee Journeys

If I was to ask you to imagine Asian refugees in the 1970s, what images would spring to mind? I suspect you would think of Vietnamese refugees, either on a boat drifting in the South China Sea or perhaps in an overcrowded camp in Malaysia. These are iconic images of Asian refugees in the 1970s and with little wonder. The Vietnamese exodus was dramatic, sudden and was the result of Western, primarily American, military intervention in the region. Furthermore, with the resettlement of over 1.4 million Indochinese (Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian) refugees throughout Western countries from April 1975 to 1991, these South-East Asian migrants have had a visible impact on cities across North America, Western Europe and Australia. 3 If not the Vietnamese refugees, then perhaps you thought of Ugandan Asians, the 27,200 ethnic Gujaratis who were forcibly expelled by Ugandan President Idi Amin as part of his government’s ‘Africanisation’ strategy in 1972–73. 4

The resettlement of Indochinese refugees, mostly in North America, Australia and France, and the arrival of Ugandan Asians in Britain and other countries were significant events in recent refugee history. Not surprisingly, these two refugee movements have attracted considerable scholarly attention. 5 But in terms of numbers, these refugee populations were dwarfed by the 10 million Bangladeshi refugees who fled to India to escape violence in their home country. Largely forgotten in public memory outside of South Asian communities, the Bangladesh refugee crisis of 1971 received saturation worldwide media coverage at the time and attracted extensive humanitarian relief from governments, aid agencies, the United Nations and religious organisations.

This chapter aims to extend the conventional narrative of Asian refugees during the 1970s to include Bangladeshi refugees. Specifically, it explores the ways that Australians of diverse backgrounds engaged with the unfolding refugee crisis in 1971 and examines how they sought to provide humanitarian relief to the millions of Bengali refugees languishing in camps in India. It asks: Who were the Australians that empathised with the plight of Bangladeshi refugees? And why did they care for distant Asian refugees, many of whom were non-Christians and with socialist leanings? The efforts of Australians to aid Bangladeshi refugees is perplexing: during the second half of the twentieth century, the Australian Government traditionally gave preference to the resettlement of European anti-communist refugees and, later, South-East Asian refugees over other persecuted groups. 6 These were the exiles with whom Australians sympathised. We shared their struggle against communism and the tyranny of authoritarian dictatorships. But the Bangladeshi refugees did not fit this typical mould and the cross-sectional support they received from the Australian public is, prima facie, counterintuitive.

Two Pakistans, many problems: A brief history to the 1971 conflict

The Islamic State of Pakistan emerged from the Partition of British India in 1947. Its two wings, West Pakistan (current-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (Bangladesh), were over 1,200 miles apart. These territories were hastily devised by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a London judge, in under six weeks. This Partition line, which is now known as the Radcliffe line, cut through 450,000 km² and affected the lives of 88 million people. The idea behind the Partition was to separate Muslim-majority areas from Hindu-majority areas, but given the religious diversity in the northern parts of India, this task was not as simple as it sounded. West Pakistan had sizeable Sikh and Hindu populations around the Punjab while in East Pakistan, around 16 per cent of the population was Hindu.

Although the created state of Pakistan was conceived on the assumption of Muslim solidarity, ethnic and linguistic differences between the two wings created frequent instability within the fledgling nation. In Pakistan, the government bestowed official status on English and Urdu, the latter considered the language of Islam in South Asia. Neither official language, however, was widely spoken. According to the 1961 Pakistani census (the most relevant census for the 1971 war), 99 per cent of East Pakistanis spoke Bengali. Meanwhile, two-thirds of West Pakistanis spoke Punjabi, the remainder speaking Urdu, Sindhi or Pashto. Given the dominance of Bengali in East Pakistan, East Pakistanis had long agitated unsuccessfully for official language recognition. The failure of the Pakistani Government to recognise Bengali as an official language was an affront to the rich literary tradition among Bengalis.

Even the idea of Muslim solidarity overcoming all other differences proved to be a myth in Pakistan. West Pakistani elites believed that, even though East Pakistanis had Muslim names and identified as Muslim, they were in fact ‘Hindu at heart’. West Pakistani elites also saw Bengalis as uncivilised and effeminate. As one West Pakistani commander commented, East Bengal was ‘a low-lying land of low-lying people’. 7 The idea that Bengalis were weaker than West Pakistanis had long colonial roots, fostered by the British when they recruited most of the military from the Punjab, the north-western province of British India. Punjabis believed that, as the selected military caste, they were racially superior to other ethnic groups in British India. This belief held through the postcolonial years, with most of the armed forces recruited from West Pakistan. These racial stereotypes, a fear of foreign Hindu influence and linguistic differences rendered East Pakistanis outsiders and ‘strangers in their own land’, which in turn provided fertile ground for the mass killings that would follow in 1971. 8

West Pakistani chauvinism arguably enabled the central government to treat its eastern province as a colony and a market, ripe for exploitation. 9 Despite being the more populous province with 76 million people, and the main supplier of income to the national economy through exports of jute and rice, East Pakistanis were deprived of enjoying the fruits of their labour. Government revenue, development projects and foreign aid expenditure were all directed to West Pakistan. West Pakistanis also had access to well-paid government jobs: Islamabad became the national capital in 1967 and home to the civil service the Pakistan Armed Forces were headquartered in neighbouring Rawalpindi. With this relative prosperity, 75 per cent of all imports to Pakistan were shipped to the western province while East Pakistanis endured endemic poverty punctuated with regular natural disasters. Two such disasters hit East Pakistan in 1970 and exacerbated ill will between the two provinces. The monsoonal floods in July were followed by a cyclone and tidal bore in December. Collectively, hundreds of thousands perished. While international aid poured in, the central government in Islamabad was slow to act and indifferent to the suffering of East Pakistanis.

Pakistan held its first democratic elections in 1970. As a watershed moment for a country plagued by corruption and dictatorships in its short history, a sense of optimism filled the air. However, the elections did not go to plan, at least from the perspective of the ruling elite in West Pakistan. Pro-autonomy East Pakistani party, the Awami League, won an absolute majority of the seats out of the newly formed 313-seat national assembly, including 167 out of 169 seats allocated to East Pakistan. With its absolute majority, the Awami League could enact its autonomy program and install its leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, as the prime minister of Pakistan. Of course, the prospect of relinquishing power to a Bengali was unacceptable to the ruling class in West Pakistan. Unwilling to forego power, Pakistan’s military dictator Yahya Khan delayed convening the new assembly, which in turn, triggered mass outrage in East Pakistan as Bengalis believed they had been robbed of their electoral victory. Mass protests and strikes soon followed, paralysing the East Pakistani economy.

At midnight on 25 March 1971, the West Pakistani armed forces invaded East Pakistan under the cover of darkness. Their aim was to quash the uprising through brute force and, while they were there, to ‘[teach] them [Bengalis] a lesson’. 10 In practice, this meant burning villages, destroying crops, capturing and raping of hundreds of thousands of women, and killing agitators, namely, students, intellectuals, Awami League activists and, most of all, Hindus. Approximately 80,000 West Pakistani troops entered East Pakistan, followed by an additional 100,000 paramilitary and civilian armed forces. The West Pakistani forces, however, were met by 175,000 East Pakistani guerrillas who were supported, materially and morally, by India. When India intervened directly in the war in December 1971 – for strategic, political and humanitarian reasons – they deployed 250,000 troops on two fronts. Simply out-powered and overrun, West Pakistan surrendered and East Pakistanis declared their independence, adopting the name Bangla Desh (Land of Bengal).

This brief, peripheral conflict left destruction on an unimaginable scale: the deaths of 1.5 million by conservative estimates 3 million by Bangladeshi estimates. To escape widespread and indiscriminate violence, millions of East Pakistanis fled for their lives. By the end of the conflict, 10 million refugees were living in camps in India, specifically in West Bengal. There were a further 20 million Bengalis internally displaced within East Pakistan. These statistics are all the more staggering when one considers that the East Pakistani population was 76 million at the time. With 30 million internally displaced or refugees in India, nearly two in five East Pakistanis were uprooted during their war of liberation from Pakistan. The mass killings during the 1971 war have been deemed by some researchers as constituting genocide, and the Bangladeshi Government explicitly promotes this view. However, other scholars argue that the violence was multidirectional and opportunistic, and that there was no systematic attempt to exterminate a race of people. Putting this debate to one side, there is a consensus that the armed forces and militia inflicted widespread suffering on civilians: in the words of one Bihari woman, 1971 was ‘the year of anarchy and end of humanity in Bangladesh’. 11

International involvement and scholarly silence

Given the scale and regional significance of the Bangladesh War of Liberation and ensuing refugee exodus, one may assume that historians, anthropologists, political scientists and/or sociologists have extensively documented and analysed this event. However, this is not the case. To be sure, archival materials are difficult to access: government documents in Bangladesh were destroyed by the Pakistani armed forces in the final days of the conflict Pakistani government archives on this topic remain closed. 12 Feminist South Asian scholars based in the West have highlighted the gendered nature of violence during the conflict. Through interviews with survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence in Bangladesh, researchers including Bina D’Costa and Yasmin Saikia have provided a voice to civilians normally rendered silent. 13

There is scant research on the actions of international actors during this conflict. What limited scholarship there is, is typically top-down and government-oriented, examining foreign policy cables, speeches and government action or inaction, or media portrayals. Drawing on recently declassified government archives, scholars have considered the responses of the governments of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and India to the crisis. 14 However, this focus on state actors does not match my own reading of events in which Australians of a variety of backgrounds mobilised, lobbied and fundraised to provide aid for Bangladeshi refugees despite government indifference to the calamity.

In this chapter, I make three main arguments. First, grassroots activism was a significant force in shaping government policy. Throughout 1971, there was a schism between community attitudes in favour of humanitarian intervention and Australian Government policy to remain neutral, avoid interfering in an internal Pakistani matter and donate as little money as possible to generate positive publicity for the government. During the refugee crisis, the Australian Government provided cash and in-kind aid to Bangladeshi refugees gradually, only increasing the donated amount in response to public pressure. In terms of refugee relief, resettlement in Australia was never an option the Indian Government that temporarily settled the 10 million refugees needed cash to buy materials for shelter, food and medical care. In the end, the Australian Government became a leading donor nation, a fact even more remarkable given the small population base of 12 million people in 1971. By the end of February 1972, the Australian Government had provided US$5,055,072, a figure only exceeded by Scandinavian/northern European nations, the Netherlands (US$5,754,247), Sweden (US$6,000,584), West Germany (US$19,771,298), and major powers, the USSR (US$20,000,000), the UK (US$38,182,132) and the US (US$89,157,000). 15 But substantial Australian Government aid may well have never happened had it not been for public activism.

Second, the Bangladeshi refugee crisis in 1971 created a coalition of disparate groups from a cross-section of Australian society who otherwise had little in common. Unlike many other social causes, aid to Bangladeshi refugees had broad appeal to the right and the left. It appealed to left-wingers who abhorred West Pakistan’s seemingly colonial policies towards its eastern wing, pacifists shocked by the wanton violence and mass killings, Christians who sought to remedy Third World poverty and inequality, and internationalists who wanted Australia to play a leading role in world affairs, especially in Asia. Importantly, due to saturation media coverage in 1971, this conflict and refugee exodus galvanised ostensibly apolitical citizens into action. This conflict was easy to understand, its villains and victims easy to identify. The imagery of starving refugees on TV and in the newspaper was evocative the statistics of up to 3 million deaths, 10 million refugees and a further 20 million internally displaced, for a region of 76 million people, were difficult to comprehend but impossible to ignore. This refugee crisis appealed to Australians’ morality and humanity, regardless of political affiliation, religion, profession, age or class.

Third, Australian involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War was significant because it demonstrated a deep and multifocal engagement with Bengal, a region not usually associated with Australian foreign policies, whether in relation to defence or development. When we think of Australia’s engagement with Asia, particularly since 1945, we may reasonably think of military action in Japan, Korea or Indochina, humanitarian efforts in South-East Asia, the complicated relationships with Indonesia and mainland China or colonial endeavours in the Pacific. 16 In short, Australians look north. Maybe it is time Australians look north-west.

There are a number of distinct groups of Australians who were active in providing aid and relief to Bangladeshi refugees, such as political activists (including students), humanitarian organisations, Christian groups and Australian diplomats stationed in the region. In this chapter, I will focus on the actions of two groups: diplomats (or public servants) and Christians. Due to word restrictions, it would be too ambitious to include a discussion on humanitarian groups and political activists, and therefore these two populations will be the subject of future publications. I have classified individuals and organisations according to their overarching affiliation and the values that inform their activities. However, the distinctions between the four groups are not perfect and there are occasions of overlap, for example, in the case of Christian student activists. Furthermore, the demarcation between each of these groups does not intend to obscure the links between them. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that individual actors during this event did not operate in a vacuum rather, they were part of, and impacted by, larger networks.

The National Library of Australia holds a number of transcribed oral histories of career diplomats, the public servants who spent most of their professional lives stationed at various embassies abroad who offer fascinating firsthand accounts as they witnessed major events in world history. These oral histories are supplemented with the memoirs and research papers of the diplomats, some of which were self-published and are unlikely to be held at other libraries. In this section, I will focus on three key diplomats: Francis Stuart, the Australian high commissioner to Pakistan, based in Islamabad, West Pakistan Jim Allen, deputy high commissioner to Pakistan, based in Dhaka, Bangladesh and Sir Keith Waller, who was secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs from 1970 to 1974. 17 All three public servants played a significant part in liaising between the William McMahon Government, UN agencies and the Indian and Pakistani governments. But that is where the similarities end between the three individuals.

James Lawrence Allen, known as Jim Allen, was definitely not a typical Australian diplomat. 18 Born in north-east India to Australian, missionary Methodist parents, the first language he spoke was Urdu. As a child, Jim’s parents would ask him questions in English and he would reply in Urdu. During his adolescence, Jim attended boarding school in Adelaide, then studied at the University of Adelaide, graduating with honours in classics. As a new graduate, Jim dreamed of joining the Indian Civil Service. He travelled to London to sit the civil service exam but just fell short of acceptance into the highly esteemed Indian Civil Service. Bitterly disappointed that he could not realise his lifelong dream, Jim returned to West Bengal and worked as an English lecturer before enlisting in the British Imperial Forces to fight in World War II.

After the war, Jim worked briefly with Lord Richard Casey, the Australian who served the British Empire as governor of Bengal from 1944 to 1946. Jim joined the Australian High Commission in New Delhi as third secretary, becoming a permanent member of the Australian Foreign Service in 1946. During this time, he witnessed firsthand the tumultuous Partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, an event that unleashed communal and sectarian violence on an unprecedented scale.

Allen was posted to Dhaka as deputy high commissioner in 1969, a post he held for five years. Importantly, Allen had a native’s proficiency in Bengali. While other diplomats in Dhaka took crash courses in Bengali, they could not shake their foreign accent. Because Allen’s mother tongue was Urdu, this helped him gain fluency in another Indo-Aryan language, Bengali. While stationed in Bangladesh, Allen mingled with peasants and workers throughout the countryside with ease. He could also make jokes in Bengali – a true indicator of fluency – which made him very popular with the locals. Because of this, Allen was widely admired and respected throughout Bangladesh, a fact that gave the Australian Government enormous kudos as Bangladesh emerged as an independent state.

In his oral history interview, Allen recalled the beginning of hostilities in Bangladesh:

On the night of Thursday the 25 th March Pakistani forces surged out of their Cantonments in all the major industrial/urban centres and started machine gunning anybody in sight – students in particular, polices, people on duty, shopkeepers … that went on for a few days in the urban centres, and of course all Bengalis fled into the countryside. Then the army fanned out into the countryside and continued this massacre in the villages … 1971 was a very sad and unhappy year.

There was a tremendous amount of cruelty and inhumanity going on all over the country … Quite frankly I had difficulty in getting the message across to Canberra. At the working level, I had the feeling there was a strong continuing pro-Pakistan bias, matched by an equally strong continuing anti-Indian bias. I had the feeling that some of my criticisms of what the Pakistan Army and the Pakistan Government was doing in East Pakistan were not all that welcome back in Canberra, at any rate on the working level.

What we have here are contesting interpretations over the conflict, its causes and how to respond. Jim Allen persevered with relaying his message to his superiors in Canberra, and with the backing of UN observers and other third parties, his perspective eventually gained traction. As Allen recalled ‘my story, told from the point of view of the Bengali people, finally prevailed’. 19

Despite wanton violence, Allen and his wife Marion ‘bravely stuck it out’ in Bangladesh, choosing not to relocate to safer surrounds. 20 The Allens were very active in relief efforts for refugees and internally displaced persons, providing food, shelter and clothing for refugees in the countryside, and later providing rehabilitation work for widows destitute after the war. Interestingly, these relief efforts were funded privately from friends and acquaintances back in Australia, independent of his work for the Australian Government. Jim Allen also liaised closely with aid agencies in Australia as well as Australian Baptist missionaries in Bengal, which will be discussed later in the chapter. 21

Francis Stuart was the Australian high commissioner to Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan, from 1970 to 1973. He was based in Islamabad, West Pakistan, some distance from his deputy, Jim Allen, in Dhaka. The two diplomats provide a clear contrast: while Allen had spent much of his life in South Asia immersed in the local cultures, Stuart had been a career diplomat and globetrotter, and had been posted in diverse countries such as Cambodia, the Philippines, the United Arab Republic (the brief union of Syria and Egypt) and Poland. Allen and Stuart also understood the conflict in Bangladesh differently. Allen was sympathetic to the view of Bengalis and admired Indian humanitarian efforts during the refugee crisis. Stuart, on the other hand, was unabashedly pro–West Pakistan and anti-Indian. During the conflict, Stuart communicated to the Australian Government that the ongoing conflict was a ‘civil war and not a war of independence against alien rule’. 22 The conflict-as-civil-war perspective of Stuart influenced Australian Government policy at first. However, the Australian Government would revise its policy and rhetoric by October 1971 in response to the public outcry at West Pakistani atrocities, and arguably, the persuasiveness of Jim Allen.

While Jim and Marion Allen were working tirelessly to help the internally displaced in the countryside of Bangladesh, Stuart was frustrated by communication difficulties. He wrote in his memoir that:

Most of the time the telex network was overloaded or closed down, or the Pakistani authorities refused to transmit messages in code. At times, we were isolated except for messages carried through the Khyber Pass to or from Kabul. 23

Isolated from communication and distant from the theatre of war, Stuart became focused on how the Indian Government, he believed, was using the crisis to shift the balance of power in the region in the pursuit of Indian hegemony. This focus arguably became an obsession at the expense of other issues, particularly humanitarian. What is striking about Stuart’s writings is that he seemed removed from what was going on in Bengal and also Australia, completely misreading public sentiment. In a condescending tone, Stuart wrote that the Australian public:

Could not be expected to interest itself in the 1971 affair. To the extent it followed things at all it [the Australian public] saw the Bangladesh conflict in black and white terms, as the suppression of a nationalist struggle for freedom against an imperialist military dictatorship. 24

Stuart also commented that ‘the Australian view of the situation as a liberation struggle against colonialism was simplistic, even puerile’. Out of touch with public activism and humanitarian endeavours in Australia, Stuart appears oblivious to the multitude of Australian responses to the Bangladeshi refugee crisis. Stuart also extended his dismissiveness to Prime Minister William McMahon, who he deemed a political opportunist who deliberately harnessed a foreign crisis to further his domestic political goals. This cynical depiction of McMahon may well have been true but the prime minister was certainly not the first nor the last politician to leverage external events for political gain.

In short, the high commissioner for Pakistan, Francis Stuart, and his deputy, Jim Allen, held diametrically opposing views, an issue perhaps exacerbated by their distance of over 2,000 km. It was up to the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Sir Keith Waller, to make sense of the conflicting information and pass on recommendations to Australia’s then novice foreign minister, Nigel Bowen.

Secretary from 1970 to 1974, Waller shared Stuart’s pro-Pakistan bias, commenting in his memoirs that the Australian Government had been traditionally wary of the Indian Government since the time of Menzies. Despite general apprehension about Hindus, Waller noted that, traditionally, the Australian Government had good relations with Bengal, both the eastern part in Pakistan and the western part in India, dating back to when Australian Lord Casey was governor of Bengal as well as the longstanding involvement of Australian Baptist missionaries in the region. 25

Sir Keith was very close to Lord Casey, who remained active in foreign policy circles until his death in 1976. They would often converse over the phone during this period. Given Casey’s experience in Bengal, Waller leant on him for advice on the ensuing crisis in South Asia. Importantly, Lord Casey respected Jim Allen, describing Allen as ‘remarkably well fitted for his difficult task’ of deputy high commissioner in Dhaka. 26 It is hard to say with any certainty, but the close relationships between Allen and Casey, and between Casey and Waller, meant that Jim Allen’s position trumped the arguments of his superior, Francis Stuart, who remained isolated and irate in Islamabad.

In addition to providing aid for the refugees, the Australian Government was the first Western nation to recognise the newly declared state of Bangladesh in early 1972. And more than that, the Australian Government forged a coalition of Western and non-aligned countries to recognise Bangladeshi independence, forcing the Pakistani Government into a corner and stopping them from retaliating. Waller was at the centre of the quite complex diplomatic task, organising with Australian ambassadors and high commissioners across the globe and in real time, persuading allied countries to get on board and support Bangladeshi recognition. In Waller’s words, the Australian Foreign Service ‘mounted a vigorous diplomatic effort to get a number of countries’ to recognise Bangladesh. 27 At this time, major Western powers were reluctant to recognise the independence of a secessionist province: the US Government refused to recognise Bangladesh as it was closely allied with Pakistan the Canadian Government feared recognition would fan the flames of its own rogue province, Quebec the UK Government were hedging their bets and the Japanese Government had adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach. Thus, the Australian Government’s formal recognition of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh was a case of it showing regional leadership and sticking its neck out to support the independence of a vaguely socialist, predominantly Muslim nation.

Christians were major aid donors who helped provide relief for Bangladeshi refugees and were pivotal in making the Bangladeshi refugee crisis a non-partisan issue. Both Protestants (mostly Anglicans, Methodists and Baptists) and Catholics were equally active in mobilising, lobbying and fundraising for Bangladeshi refugees and overcame sectarian divisions to work collaboratively on the issue. Leaders within the various Christian churches were also very effective lobbyists, with ready access to the Prime Minister’s Office, and their seniority within the church bestowed a certain gravitas on their views. Unlike ordinary constituents who wrote to the prime minister and received a reply from the prime minister’s private secretary, church leaders received replies direct from the prime minister himself, suggesting that their letters were read by McMahon while other constituent letters did not pass the secretary’s desk. 28

Len Reid was an outspoken advocate for cash donations to the Indian Government to run the refugee camps. He was a Christian first and a politician second. After a couple of terms in the Victorian Parliament, he was elected the federal member for Holt, an electorate in the outer south-eastern suburbs and urban fringe of Melbourne. He was a Liberal politician, though he acted like more of an opposition MP and was a constant thorn in the McMahon Government’s side. Reid established the Christian charity, For those who have less in 1962, an organisation dedicated to addressing poverty and famine in India, Pakistan and Nepal. Driven by Christian values of service to God and helping the poor with humility and service, he believed it was ‘God’s will and our privilege to help’. 29 He strongly advocated what he termed ‘sacrificial giving’. What constituted sacrificial would vary from person to person, but the point was that the degree of giving should be so significant that one should suffer as a result. Giving is not about feeling good about yourself, he reasoned: it’s about sufferance. Quoting Mohandas Gandhi, Reid explained that whenever one person suffers voluntarily, it relieves someone else of suffering: ‘everyone who fasts gives bread to another who needs it more – everyone who makes some sacrifice helps someone else somewhere’. 30

Reid’s Christian beliefs were at the forefront of his appeal to Australians, invoking references to the Crusades. He argued that, as a Christian community, ‘we must take more responsibility for the great human problems that confront so many people around the world’ and it is up to the non-government sector ‘to campaign more vigorously. If necessary, they should crusade’. 31 Reid’s rhetoric was at times confrontational, challenging Australians to put into action their Christian values. In his words, ‘If Australia is to continue to call herself a Christian community, we can no longer procrastinate while millions face famine conditions’. 32

As a member of parliament, Reid travelled to West Bengal on behalf of the government, visiting some 30 refugee camps. With each camp home to approximately 5,000 refugees, Reid estimated that he had seen the lived conditions affecting 150,000 refugees. During this visit, he consulted with government, inter-government and non-government organisations on the ground. With this knowledge, he lobbied the McMahon Government to do more during the refugee crisis in 1971 and for reconstruction and rehabilitation during 1972. In one letter to the prime minister, Reid wrote:

I know the Australian people to be generous and fair minded and where there are injustices they react strongly, for these reasons it will be necessary for us to raise our Aid priorities … The people in Australia will soon demand that we accept a greater responsibility in these countries and I feel we could well seize the initiative. 33

Reid dedicated much of his only term in the Federal Parliament to lobbying the Australian Government to increase its aid commitment to Asia. It appears that he did so purely for compassionate reasons and was not interested in grandstanding or accounting tricks to impress the public. Specifically, Reid advocated for cash over material (or in-kind) donations.

He was a straight shooter and didn’t hold back in his correspondence with the prime minister. Reflecting on events the previous year, in March 1972 Reid wrote:

During this [refugee] crisis I repeatedly stated that India and the United Nations needed cash – not goods – to provide immediate relief for the refugee. However, my pleas might just as well have come from a junior office boy in the Foreign Office for all the notice that was taken.

I might add I had good reasons for suggesting a cash donation of $10M for the refugees, as I had spent some time visiting a number of refugee camps during the Monsoon, and also had on the spot discussions with Mrs Gandhi and the Government of Pakistan, and they stressed their most urgent need was cash to purchase goods locally … Whoever made the decision not to send cash made the wrong decision, and it appears to me the less said on this issue the better. 34

To clarify, cash donations are generally preferred by aid groups over in-kind donations. Cash can be sent quickly and used to purchase goods on the ground almost immediately. In-kind donations incur significant freighting charges and take time to transport to the refugee camps. There is also the view that in-kind donations are self-serving, for example, giving business to Australian companies when cheaper alternatives were available closer to India. In-kind donations are thus a self-beneficial method to inflate artificially the aid budget and thus maximise positive publicity in the media and with the voting public, as well as earning political capital with other nations. Reid was perhaps ill-suited to the realpolitik in Canberra, not lasting more than one term in the Federal Parliament. His insistent calls for Australians to abandon their addiction to material possessions in pursuit of higher ideals no doubt closely aligned with other active Christians, namely, Baptist missionaries.

Australian Baptist missionaries first worked in Bengal in 1882 and continue to work in Bangladesh to this day. Since 1882, over 250 individuals or couples have worked in the region, including 28 individuals who served during the early 1970s. Although these Christians provided aid to local communities in crisis, it should be clear that humanitarianism was not their raison d’être. Even amid the mass destruction and loss of life during the Bangladesh Liberation War, Baptist missionaries remained optimistic about prospects for Christian conversion of Bengali Muslims. In their end of year report in 1971, the South Australian Baptist Union commented:

The outcome of the events [in Bangladesh] are what now concern us, and these are not only thrilling, but challenging. Opportunities for effective evangelism among Moslems in Bangla Desh are more promising today than for many years. The Mission is, therefore, looking to God to raise up the men and money to embark on concentrated evangelism in the new nation. How will we respond to the challenge of a nation that is looking for a satisfying faith? [Italics added] 35

Along with their evangelism, the South Australian branch of the Baptist Church provided material aid from afar, including food parcel delivery, medical care and other relief supplies for refugees. 36

The Australian Baptist Church also sent missionaries to Bangladesh to promote Christianity in the region. When hostilities broke out in March 1971, there were 17 individuals working in the region, including three married couples. 37 Most of the Australian missionaries chose to return home or continued their work in India. However, three individuals – Rev. Ian Hawley, Miss Betty Salisbury and Miss Grace Dodge – stayed in Bangladesh throughout the war. They were based in the north at Mymensingh in a compound with 80 refugees, a town that Hawley later described as ‘an awful place of death’. In a 2005 piece, Ian Hawley remembered that:

Every night in Mymensingh during the months of November and December [1971] people were arrested on any pretence, with the Army’s consent. Fanatical Muslims, it would seem, were given a free hand to kill whoever they wanted to kill. They unashamedly left victims’ bodies on the edge of a river … Vultures and dogs feasted on them. The bodies of others were cut into pieces and thrown down wells. I have seen these wells full of dismembered bodies and also corpses being eaten by dogs on the river bank. How a person can act with such unrelenting savagery and utter contempt for the sacredness and value of human life is beyond all comprehension. 38

Australian missionaries were unharmed during the conflict, though their properties were damaged and ransacked. Grace Dodge, one of the Australian missionaries, believed that the retreating West Pakistani Army torched the countryside in a final attempt at destruction, leaving the natural environment appearing more like the Australian bush after a fire than the verdant plains associated with Bengal. The local Christian community in Bangladesh had a low death rate as the Pakistani armed forces and militias targeted Hindus, as well as dissenters and professionals. 39 Australian Baptists sought divine wisdom to understand the unfolding conflict and to remain brave among escalating dangers. The missionaries maintained their faith and, in fact, saw the conflict as an opportunity to improve their standing with the locals and acceptance in the community. Beyond their missionary goals, Australian Baptists provided practical compassion for refugees, sheltering vulnerable populations – such as women and children – from the army. 40

Australian Council of Churches

The Australian Council of Churches (ACC) is the peak body representing Anglican, Protestant and Orthodox churches, with its global headquarters in Geneva. Missionary zeal was also evident in this organisation, though there was an awareness that such proselytising could backfire. In a report sent to the World Council of Churches, ACC staff writer Bruce Best observed that Christians would be able to play a more prominent role in postwar Pakistan and Bangladesh but warned that students in particular were becoming dissatisfied with ‘what they see as the pietism of the churches and the “missionary” mentality’. Best believed that young students were more likely to support Christianity in its practical dimension, especially projects that promoted social and economic equality rather than adhering to Christian theology alone. While postwar Bangladesh presented fertile ground for conversion, Best worried that it may be more than the local missionaries could control, commenting that ‘this growing group [of students] may well become a radical force in the very near future’. 41

Operationally, the ACC focused on advocacy, both at the top echelons of society and among local citizens. Crossing sectarian divisions, the ACC collaborated with Australian Catholic Relief to lobby the government for more refugee aid and encourage officials to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. In a joint letter to the prime minister on 4 June 1971, the directors of Australian Catholic Relief and the ACC urged the government to keep the burgeoning crisis ‘under constant review and to make further substantial grants as the opportunities occur’. 42 At the local level, the ACC dispatched circulars to all parish ministers throughout Australia, encouraging them to pray and seek donations from their congregants. In one such letter on 9 June 1971, the president of the ACC, Reverend David Garnsey, bishop of Gippsland in Victoria, reminded ministers of the imperative of Christian compassion. He wrote, ‘The Christian Churches have long felt a special responsibility to care for refugees who are forced to place themselves at the mercy of their fellowmen’. 43

The ACC was the go-to destination for Christians wishing to volunteer their services in the refugee camps in India. The director of ACC, Reverend Ted Arblaster, received a number of letters from doctors and nurses, as well as Christian leaders, wishing to work on the ground. The rationale behind the offers of voluntary service ranged from evangelical to practical. Beginning with the evangelical, Mrs Maureen Bomford from Sydney wrote to Arblaster on 15 June 1971:

Would the Australian Council of Churches be willing to send me to the Prime Minister of Pakistan?

I know that God would be with me, in this undertaking and I am confident I could gain guarantee and security for the safe return of 6 ½ million refugees.

For ten years I have been corresponding to all Prime Ministers, including Pakistan, and I have sent at least four letters this year to the present Prime Minister. I know that if the Australian Council of Churches have faith in me, God would do the rest.

The biggest problems need the shortest way for solution. This would have God’s approval. 44

Other Christians based their expressions of interest on more practical grounds than religious. In a telephone conversation with Ted Arblaster, nurse Caroline Clough explained that her background and vocational training made her an ideal volunteer. In a scribbled hand-written note documenting their telephone conversation, Arblaster noted that Ms Clough was born in Calcutta and emigrated in 1947, aged 20. She spoke Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu) and was a trained nurse and practised at Wollongong’s Port Kembla Hospital. Importantly, Clough had experience in nursing cholera, a skill particularly relevant as the refugee camps had endured a cholera outbreak that very month. Not wishing to limit her usefulness though, Clough affirmed that she would ‘do anything’ to help the refugees in the camps. 45 Arblaster also received offers of service from doctors Beryl Barber and Peter Bass, as well as (presumably nurses) Misses Betty Andersen and Dorothy Platt. Arblaster forwarded the contact details of these individuals to the executive secretary of the Australian refugee aid organisation Austcare, which was operating a medical clinic in a refugee camp. 46 However, all requests for volunteering on the ground were universally rejected as the refugee camps were well serviced by local health professionals in India. The ACC reiterated that Australian Christians could help most by offering cash donations and prayers.

This chapter draws our attention to a major event in recent refugee history that has largely been forgotten outside of South Asian communities. It is hard to believe that a refugee crisis on this scale has been overlooked for so long. The declassification of government archives in Western countries should facilitate research into this topic. However, government archives only provide a limited perspective, outlining bureaucratic machinations and policy debates. Though these areas are valuable to historians, government sources cannot shed light on the actions of individuals and organisations outside of government.

The lack of historical scholarship on the Bangladeshi refugee crisis is problematic, as it implicitly leads to the conclusion that this event does not matter or warrant remembrance. It also implies that individual Australians did not care or do anything to address the suffering of others. Too often, the Bangladesh Liberation War and international involvement – if it is ever mentioned – is reduced to the charity concert in New York City in August 1971 that was initiated by Beatle George Harrison. This focus on the actions of one celebrity in New York City obscures the actions of an array of individual Australians who mobilised, prayed, lobbied government, fundraised and travelled to the region to contribute something, anything, to aid the Bangladeshi refugees in India. Furthermore, Australian diplomats and Christians were active from the early months of the conflict and at the forefront of the broad-based movement to provide aid to Bangladeshi refugees. Their commitment to this cause was strong, and in the case of the missionaries and the Allens, they stayed in Bangladesh at considerable risk to their own safety. Despite government inertia and equivocation, Christians and diplomats challenged their political leaders to do more for these Asian refugees, and failing that, took matters into their own hands.

1 At the time of the conflict, Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan. I will use the contemporary term ‘Bangladesh’, unless quoting directly from archival material or discussing the history of the region.

2 This research was generously supported by a National Library of Australia Fellowship, funded by the Past and Present members of the National Library Council in 2018.

3 Rachel Stevens, Immigration Policy from 1970 to the Present (New York: Routledge, 2016): 108 Seamus O’Hanlon and Rachel Stevens, ‘A Nation of Immigrants or a Nation of Immigrant Cities? The Urban Context of Australian Multiculturalism’, Australian Journal of Politics and History (hereafter AJPH) 63, no. 4 (2017): 556–71, doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12403.

4 Samia Nasar, ‘We Refugees? Re-defining Britain’s East African Asians’, in Migrant Britain. Histories and Historiographies: Essays in Honour of Colin Holmes, eds Jennifer Craig-Norton, Christhard Hoffmann and Tony Kushner (London: Routledge, 2018): 138–48, doi.org/10.4324/9781315159959-16, and Panikos Panayi, ed., The Impact of Immigration: A Documentary History of the Effects and Experiences of Immigrants in Britain Since 1945 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999).

5 For recent scholarship of Vietnamese refugees, see the voluminous work of Nathalie Huynh Chau Nguyen for recent publications on the resettlement of Ugandan Asians in Britain, see Becky Taylor, ‘Good Citizens? Ugandan Asians, Volunteers and “Race” Relation in 1970s Britain’, History Workshop Journal 85, no. 1 (2018): 120–41, doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbx055 Yumiko Hamai, ‘“Imperial Burden” or “Jews of Africa?” An Analysis of Political and Media Discourse in the Ugandan Asian Crisis (1972)’, Twentieth Century British History 22, no. 3 (2011): 415–36, doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwq059.

6 For histories of Australian resettlement of central and eastern European refugees, see Jayne Persian’s Beautiful Balts: From Displaced Persons to New Australians (Sydney: NewSouth Publishing, 2017) and Vasilios Vasilas, When Freedom Beckons: The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the Jewish Hungarian Journey to Australia (Sydney: Vasilios Vasilas, 2017).

7 Donald Beachler, ‘The Politics of Genocide Scholarship: The Case of Bangladesh’, Patterns of Prejudice 41, no. 5 (2007): 467–92, 477–78, doi.org/10.1080/00313220701657286.

8 Yasmin Saikia, ‘Insāniyat for Peace: Survivors’ narrative of the 1971 war of Bangladesh’, Journal of Genocide Research 13, no. 4 (2011): 475–501, 486, doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2011.625739.

9 Srinath Raghavan, 1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2013).

10 Quotation is from British High Commissioner to Pakistan, Cyril Pickard, in 1971. See Angela Debnath, ‘British Perceptions of the East Pakistan Crisis 1971: “Hideous Atrocities on Both Sides”’, Journal of Genocide Research 13, no. 4 (2011): 421–50, 428, doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2011.625744, and Simon C Smith, ‘Coming Down on the Winning Side: Britain on the South Asia Crisis, 1971’, Contemporary British History 24, no. 4 (2010): 451–70, 456, doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2010.518410.

11 Quotation comes from Christian Gerlach, Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010), chapter 4, doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511781254. For scholarly debate on the extent and nature of violence during the 1971 war, see Beachler, ‘The Politics of Genocide Scholarship’ A Dirk Moses, ‘The United Nations, Humanitarianism and Human Rights: War Crimes/Genocide Trials for Pakistani Soldiers in 1971’, in Human Rights in the Twentieth Century, ed. Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman (New York: Cambridge University Press 2011): 258–80, doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511921667.017 Wardatul Akmam, ‘Atrocities against Humanity During the Liberation War in Bangladesh: A Case of Genocide’, Journal of Genocide Research 4, no. 4 (2002): 543–59, doi.org/10.1080/146235022000000463 Sarmila Bose, ‘The Question of Genocide and the Quest for Justice in the 1971 War’, Journal of Genocide Research 13, no. 4 (2011): 393–419, doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2011.625750, and her generalist book, Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War (London: Hurst Publishers 2011).

13 Bina D’Costa, Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia (London: Routledge, 2010) Yasmin Saikia, ‘Beyond the Archive of Silence: Narratives of Violence of the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh’, History Workshop Journal 58, no. 1 (2004): 275–87, doi.org/10.1093/hwj/58.1.275.

14 Gary J Bass, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013) Raghavan, 1971 Richard Pilkington, ‘In the National Interest? Canada and the East Pakistan Crisis of 1971’, Journal of Genocide Research 13, no. 4 (2011): 451–74, doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2011.625741 Debnath, ‘British Perceptions of the East Pakistan Crisis’ Janice Musson, ‘Britain and the Recognition of Bangladesh in 1972’, Diplomacy & Statecraft 19, no. 1 (2008): 125–44, doi.org/10.1080/09592290801913767 Sonia Cordera, ‘India’s Response to the 1971 East Pakistan Crisis: Hidden and Open Reasons for Intervention’, Journal of Genocide Research 17, no. 1 (2015): 45–62, doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2015.991207.

15 Offers of Assistance Made By/Received from Foreign Governments up to 24-2-1972, Contributions from governments to the Focal Point – General File, Series 1, Classified Subject Files, Fonds 11, Records of the Central Registry, Archives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva.

16 For recent Australian scholarship on histories of humanitarianism in Asia, Agnieszka Sobocinska, ‘A New Kind of Mission: The Volunteer Graduate Scheme and the History of International Development’, AJPH 62, no. 3 (2016): 369–87, doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12268 Joy Damousi, ‘The Campaign for Japanese-Australian Children to Enter Australia, 1957–1968: A History of Post-War Humanitarianism’, AJPH 64, no. 2 (2018): 211–26, doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12461 on relations with Indonesia and China, see Peter van der Eng, ‘Konfrontasi and Australia’s Aid to Indonesia during the 1960s’, AJPH 55, no. 1 (2009): 46-63 Billy Griffiths, The China Breakthrough: Whitlam in the Middle Kingdom, 1971 (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing 2012) on histories of development, see Nicholas Ferns, ‘“A New Hope for Asia?” Australia, the United States and the Promotion of Economic Development in Southeast Asia’, AJPH 64, no. 1 (2018): 33–47, doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12422 on histories of colonial involvement in the Pacific, see Stephen Henningham, ‘Australia’s Economic Ambitions in French New Caledonia, 1945–1955’, Journal of Pacific History 49, no. 4 (2014): 421–39, doi.org/10.1080/00223344.2014.976915 Bruce Hunt, Australia’s Northern Shield: Papua New Guinea and the Defence of Australia since 1880 (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2017).

17 Unless it is a direct quotation, I will use the indigenous spelling of ‘Dhaka’ rather than the Anglicised spelling ‘Dacca’ throughout this chapter.

18 The following discussion is based on: ‘James Allen interviewed by Mel Pratt for the Mel Pratt Collection [sound recording]’, 1976, typed transcript, National Library of Australia (NLA), ORAL TRC 121/76, available at: nla.gov.au/nla.obj-214917676.

20 Francis Stuart, Towards Coming of Ages. A Foreign Service Odyssey, Australians in Asia Series, March 1989 (Brisbane: Griffith University, 1989), 230.

21 J L Allen to Moira Lenore Dynon, Letter 1972 [manuscript], 1972. NLA MS 3118.

22 Stuart, Towards Coming of Ages, 230.

25 Sir Keith Waller, A Diplomatic Life: Some Memories, Australians in Asia Series, July 1990 (Brisbane: Griffith University, 1990), 45–46.

26 Diary entry, 12 April 1969 in ‘Lord Casey’s diaries, 1965 – June 1976’, vol. 29, Box 31a, subseries 4.4 Lord Casey’s diaries (photocopies), series 4 Diaries and Letterbooks, Casey family. Papers of the Casey family, 1820–1978 [manuscript], NLA MS 6150.

27 Waller, A Diplomatic Life, 46.

28 Example letters from constituents and the clergy can be found in ‘Constituent correspondence, June 1971’: Files 47 and 49, Box 442, Series 17 Prime Minister 1967–72, William McMahon and Liberal Party of Australia, Papers of William McMahon, 1949–1987 [manuscript], NLA MS 3926.

29 Len Reid, The Tragedy of Those Who Have Less (Melbourne: Fraser & Morphet, 1973), 23.

33 ‘Letter. L. S. Reid, Member for Holt to the Rt Hon. William McMahon’, 2 November 1972, File 114m Members’ Correspondence. R., Box 449, Series 17 Prime Minister 1967–72, William McMahon and Liberal Party of Australia, Papers of William McMahon, 1949-1987 [manuscript], NLA MS 3926.

34 ‘Letter. L. S. Reid, Member for Holt to the Rt Hon. William McMahon’, 30 March 1972, File 114, NLA MS 3926.

35 South Australian Baptist Union Incorporated, Handbook for 1971–1972: Programme and Reports for Autumn Assembly 1972 (Adelaide: Publisher Unspecified, 1972), 58.

37 Tony Cupit, Ros Gooden and Ken Manley, From Five Barley Loaves: Australian Baptists in Global Mission 1864–2010 (Melbourne: Mosaic Press, 2013), 124.

38 Ian Hawley, ‘Reflections on the 1971 Civil War in Bangladesh’, Our Yesterdays: A Publication of the Victorian Baptist Historical Society 13 (2005): 7–23, 19.

39 Grace Dodge, ‘Birisiri Mission or Bunker Mission?’ Vision (Australian Baptist Missionary Society Magazine) March 1972, 3, 5.

40 Dodge, ‘Birisiri Mission or Bunker Mission?’.

41 Bruce Best, Report: ‘East and West of a Disaster, 7 February 1972’ in File: East Pakistan Refugees – Relief Action 1972, Box 425.05.110: Projects East Pakistan Relief and Rehabilitation Service 1972, Series 425: Commission of Interchurch Aid, Relief and World Service (CICARWS), 1948–1992, Sub-fond: Programmes (1911–), Paper Archives of the World Council of Churches, Geneva.

42 ‘Letter. Wm. C. Byrne Executive Director, Australian Catholic Relief and E. H. Arblaster, Secretary-Director, Division of World Christian Action, Australian Council of Churches, to the Rt. Hon William McMahon, MP, 4 June 1971’ in Folder: Pakistan, East and West, 1964–71, Box 117, Records of the Australian Council of Churches, 1911–1990, NLA MS 7645, MS Acc96.075.

43 ‘Letter. The Rt. Rev. David A. Garnsey, Bishop of Gippsland, President, Australian Council of Churches to Parish Ministers. 9 June 1971’ in MP’ in Folder: Pakistan, East and West, 1964–71, Box 117, Records of the Australian Council of Churches.

44 ‘Letter. Mrs Maureen Bomford to The Rev. E. H. Arblaster, 15 June 1971’ and ‘Letter. The Rev. E.H. Arblaster to Mrs Maureen Bomford, 22 June 1971’ in Folder: Pakistan, East and West, 1964–71, Box 117, Records of the Australian Council of Churches.

45 Scribbled note of conversation between the Rev. E H Arblaster and Mrs Caroline Clough, in Folder: Pakistan, East and West, 1964–71, Box 117, Records of the Australian Council of Churches.

46 ‘Letter. The Rev. E.H. Arblaster to Mr Parish, Executive Secretary of Austcare, 22 June 1971’ in Folder: Pakistan, East and West, 1964–71, Box 117, Records of the Australian Council of Churches.

+61 2 6125 5111
The Australian National University, Canberra
CRICOS Provider : 00120C
ABN : 52 234 063 906


European Americans

European Americans (also referred to as Euro-Americans) are Americans of European ancestry. [3] [4] This term includes people who are descended from the first European settlers in the United States as well as people who are descended from more recent European arrivals. European Americans are the largest panethnic group in the United States, both historically and at present.

The Spaniards are thought to be the first Europeans to establish a continuous presence in what is now the contiguous United States, with Martín de Argüelles (b. 1566) in St. Augustine, then a part of Spanish Florida, [5] [6] and the Russians were the first Europeans to settle in Alaska, establishing Russian America. The first English child born in the Americas was Virginia Dare, born August 18, 1587 (see First white child). She was born in Roanoke Colony, located in present-day North Carolina, which was the first attempt, made by Queen Elizabeth I, to establish a permanent English settlement in North America.

In the 2016 American Community Survey, German Americans (13.0%), Irish Americans (12%), English Americans (9%), Italian Americans (6.0%), and French Americans (4%) were the five largest self-reported European ancestry groups in the United States, forming over a third of the total population. [7] However, the English Americans and other British Americans demography is considered to be significantly under-counted, as the people in that demographic tend to identify themselves simply as Americans (20,151,829 or 7.2%). [8] [9] [10] [11] The same applies to Spanish Americans demography, as the people in that demographic tend to identify themselves simply as Hispanic and Latino Americans (58,846,134 or 16.6%), even though they carry a mean of 65.1% European ancestry, mainly from Spain. [12] In the 2000 census over 56 million or 19.9% of the United States population ignored the ancestry question completely and are classified as "unspecified" and "not reported". [13]

Terminology

Number of European Americans: 1800–2010
Year Population % of the United States Ref(s)
1800 4,306,446 81.1% [14]
1850 19,553,068 84.3% [14]
1900 66,809,196 87.9% [14]
1950 134,942,028 89.5% [14]
2010 223,553,265 72.4% [15]

In 1995, as part of a review of the Office of Management and Budget's Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting), a survey was conducted of census recipients to determine their preferred terminology for the racial/ethnic groups defined in the Directive. For the White group, European American came third, preferred by 2.35% of panel interviewees. [16]

The term is sometimes used interchangeably with Caucasian American, White American, and Anglo American in many places around the United States. [17] However, the terms Caucasian and White are purely racial terms, not geographic, and include some populations whose origin is outside of Europe and Anglo-American also has another definition, meaning, European Americans with English ancestry.

Origin

The term is used by some to emphasize the European cultural and geographical ancestral origins of Americans, in the same way as is done for African Americans and Asian Americans. A European American awareness is still notable because 90% of the respondents classified as white in the U.S. Census knew [ clarification needed ] their European ancestry. [18]

As a linguistic concern, the term is sometimes meant to discourage a dichotomous view of the racial landscape between the white category and everyone else. [19] Margo Adair suggests that the recognition of specific European American ancestries allows certain Americans to become aware that they come from a variety of different cultures. [20]

Subgroups

There are a number of subgroupings of European Americans. [21] While these categories may be approximately defined, often due to the imprecise or cultural regionalization of Europe, the subgroups are nevertheless used widely in cultural or ethnic identification. [22] This is particularly the case in diasporic populations, as with European people in the United States generally. [23] In alphabetical order, some of the subgroups are:

  • Northwestern European Americans, including Austrian Americans, Belgian Americans, British Americans (Cornish Americans, English Americans, Manx Americans, Scottish Americans, Welsh Americans), Dutch Americans, French Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, Luxembourgian Americans, Nordic Americans (Danish Americans, Finnish Americans, Icelandic Americans, Norwegian Americans, Swedish Americans) and Swiss Americans, or "Old Immigrants" (arrived pre-1881)
  • Eastern European Americans, including Belarusian Americans, Czech Americans, Estonian Americans, Hungarian Americans, Latvian Americans, Lithuanian Americans, Moldovan Americans, Polish Americans, Romanian Americans, Russian Americans, Slovak Americans, and Ukrainian Americans, or "New Immigrants" (arrived 1881-1965)
  • Southern European Americans, including Albanian Americans, Bulgarian Americans, Cypriot Americans, Greek Americans, Italian Americans, Maltese Americans, Moldovan Americans, Portuguese Americans, Spanish Americans (Asturian Americans, Basque Americans, Canarian Americans, Catalan Americans, Galician Americans), and Yugoslav Americans (Bosnian Americans, Croatian Americans, Macedonian Americans, Montenegrin Americans, Serbian Americans, Slovenian Americans), also "New Immigrants" (arrived 1881-1965)

History

Historical immigration / est. origins
Country Immigration
before 1790
Population
ancestry: 1790 [24]
England* 230,000 1,900,000
Ulster Scotch-Irish* 135,000 320,000
Germany [b] 103,000 280,000
Scotland* 48,500 160,000
Ireland 8,000 200,000
Netherlands 6,000 100,000
Wales* 4,000 120,000
France 3,000 80,000
Sweden and Other [c] 500 20,000
*Totals, British 417,500 2,500,000+
United States [d] 950,000 3,929,214
Source: [25] (excludes African population.)

Since 1607, some 57 million immigrants have come to the United States from other lands. Approximately 10 million passed through on their way to some other place or returned to their original homelands, leaving a net gain of some 47 million people. [26]

Shifts in European migration

Before 1881, the vast majority of immigrants, almost 86% of the total, arrived from northwest Europe, principally Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia, known as "Old Immigration". The years between 1881 and 1893 the pattern shifted, in the sources of U.S. "New Immigration". Between 1894 and 1914, immigrants from southern, central, and eastern Europe accounted for 69% of the total. [27] [28] [29] Prior to 1960, the overwhelming majority came from Europe or of European descent from Canada. The shift in European immigration has been in decline since the mid-20th century, with 75.0% of the total foreign-born population born in Europe compared to 12.1% recorded in the 2010 census. [30]

Immigration since 1820

European immigration to the US 1820–1970
Years Arrivals Years Arrivals Years Arrivals
1820–1830 98,816 1901–1910 8,136,016 1981–1990
1831–1840 495,688 1911–1920 4,376,564 1991–2000
1841–1850 1,597,502 1921–1930 2,477,853
1851–1860 2,452,657 1931–1940 348,289
1861–1870 2,064,407 1941–1950 621,704
1871–1880 2,261,904 1951–1960 1,328,293
1881–1890 4,731,607 1961–1970 1,129,670
1891–1900 3,558,793 1971–1980
Arrivals Total (150 yrs) 35,679,763
Source: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
Country of origin 1820–1978
Country Arrivals % of total Country Arrivals % of total
Germany 1 6,978,000 14.3% Norway 856,000 1.8%
Italy 5,294,000 10.9% France 751,000 1.5%
Great Britain 4,898,000 10.01% Greece 655,000 1.3%
Ireland 4,723,000 9.7% Portugal 446,000 0.9%
Austria-Hungary 1, 2 4,315,000 8.9% Denmark 364,000 0.7%
Russia 1, 2 3,374,000 6.9% Netherlands 359,000 0.7%
Sweden 1,272,000 2.6% Finland 33,000 0.1%
Total (158 yrs) 34,318,000
Source: [36] [37] [38] Note: Many returned to their country of origin

The figures below show that of the total population of specified birthplace in the United States. A total of 11.1% were born-overseas of the total population.

Population / Proportion
born in Europe in 1850–2016
Year Population % of foreign-born
1850 2,031,867 92.2%
1860 3,807,062 92.1%
1870 4,941,049 88.8%
1880 5,751,823 86.2%
1890 8,030,347 86.9%
1900 8,881,548 86.0%
1910 11,810,115 87.4%
1920 11,916,048 85.7%
1930 11,784,010 83.0%
1960 7,256,311 75.0%
1970 5,740,891 61.7%
1980 5,149,572 39.0%
1990 4,350,403 22.9%
2000 4,915,557 15.8%
2010 4,817,437 12.1%
2016 4,785,267 10.9%
Source: [39] [40] [41] [42]

Demographics

The numbers below give numbers of European Americans as measured by the U.S. Census in 1980, 1990, and 2000. The numbers are measured according to declarations in census responses. This leads to uncertainty over the real meaning of the figures: For instance, as can be seen, according to these figures, the European American population dropped 40 million in ten years, but in fact, this is a reflection of changing census responses. In particular, it reflects the increased popularity of the "American" option following its inclusion as an example in the 2000 census forms.

Breakdowns of the European American population into sub-components is a difficult and rather arbitrary exercise. Farley (1991) argues that "because of ethnic intermarriage, the numerous generations that separate respondents from their forebears and the apparent unimportance to many whites of European origin, responses appear quite inconsistent". [45]


See also

  • United States portal
  • Europe portal
  • American ethnicity
  • Anglo
  • Ethnic groups in Europe
  • European Canadians
  • Immigration to the United States
  • Melting pot
  • Non-Hispanic Whites
  • Stereotypes of White Americans
  • White Americans
  • White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
  • White ethnic
  • White Hispanic and Latino Americans
  • White Southerners

Microfilm Holdings

Over the years we’ve had an opportunity to purchase some microfilm for our in-house collection for our patrons to use. Most of the films we buy comes directly from the Nebraska State Historical Society, however we have and will purchase films from other sources as budgeting allows. The first tab to the left are the films we own outright, the other tabs indicate other films in our collection that are owned by another institution but held here on an indefinite loan basis and can be recalled at anytime.

Name of NewspaperDates CoveredCounty, STNSHS Control #
Mitchell Index5/17/1917 to 4/8/1920Scotts Bluff Co., NEc#012806
Mitchell Index4/15/1920 to 6/7/1923Scotts Bluff Co., NEc#012807
Mitchell Index6/14/1923 to 4/15/1926Scotts Bluff Co., NEc#012808
Mitchell Index4/22/1926 to 3/7/1929Scotts Bluff Co., NEc#012809
Mitchell Index3/14/1929 to 4/28/1932Scotts Bluff Co., NEc#012810
Mitchell Index5/5/1932 to 5/9/1935Scotts Bluff Co., NEc#012811
Seward Weekly Reporter1/20/1874 to 11/18/1875Seward Co., NEc#011451
Spalding Enterprise4/19/1945 to 12/18/1947Greeley Co., NEc#004748
St. Paul Phonograph-Herald9/26/1878 to 6/1/1882Hall Co., NEc#004993

LDS film #ContentsNotes
0000944The Broyles family
by Arthur Leslie Keith (1874-1942)
John Broyles (Breil, Breils, Broil, Broyle, etc.) was born in Germany ca. 1680 and immigrated to Virginia in 1717 with his family. He and his wife, Ursula, had at least five children. He died in the early part of 1734 in what is now Madison County, Virginia. Descendants listed lived in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, and elsewhere. Most descendants spelled their surname Broyles, although some used Breiles, Broiles or other spelling variations.

Item 2
: Miscellaneous bonds of North Carolina

Fødte og Døbte 1862-1891 v. 1-3

Konfirmerede 1862-1891 v. 1-3

Døde og Begravede 1862-1891 v. 1-3

Til- og Afgangslister 1867-1874 v. 1-2

Fødte og Døbte 1883-1891 v. 2

Konfirmerede 1883-1891 v. 2

Item 2
Folger family Bible records transcripts, ca. 1765-1948
My tale of two new years, or a thumbnail autobiography
Kirkham, Alvin W.
Item 3
Also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1972. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
Kocher family
Kocher, Florence
Item 4
Kocher family
The pedigree of Oliver St. John
Smallwood, Frank T.
Item 5
The pedigree of Oliver St. John
Pancake family

Item 6
Pancake family
Strickland family wills and other miscellaneous papers

Item 7
Strickland family wills and other miscellaneous papers
Index of Trices

Item 8
Also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1970. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
Index of Riggins families
Kelty, Daniel Stone, Mrs.
Item 9
Index of Riggins families
History of an Eckhar(d)t family whose three sons (John, Henry, George) came to America before 1850, including records of a Pullman family
Reinoehl, Charles M. (Charles Myron)
Item 10
Also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1970. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
""Gentleman"" John Perkins
Scott, W. W. (William Wallace), 1845-1929
Item 11
Also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1970. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
Rose Hill Cemetery
Oklahoma Genealogical Society (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Item 12
Another filming.
1850 mortality schedules of Appanoose, Lucas and Pottawattamie counties, Iowa
Parker, Jimmy B.
Item 13
Also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1970. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
Prairie View cemetery records, Marshall County, Iowa
Knoblock, Elizabeth
Item 14
Also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1970. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
Index to the grave records of servicemen of the War of 1812, state of Ohio

Item 15
Index to the grave records of servicemen of the War of 1812, state of Ohio
Calendar of Louisiana colonial documents
Gianelloni, Elizabeth Becker
Item 16
Vol. 2 also on microfilm. Salt Lake City : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1970. on 1 microfilm reel 35 mm.
The Pike County Republican maps showing Illinois county boundary changes

Items 1-2
A Biographical and genealogical history of southeastern Nebraska
Compendium of history, reminiscence and biography of western Nebraska : containing a history of the state of Nebraska. also a compendium of reminiscence of western Nebraska containing biographical sketches of hundreds of prominent old settlers and representative citizens..

Item 5
Nebraskans, 1854-1904
The Nebraska blue book : a publication of the Nebraska Legislative reference bureau
Nebraska. Legislative Reference Bureau
Item 6
1918 ed. also on microfilm. [Tucson, Ariz. : W.C. Cox, 1974]. on 1 microfilm reel 16 mm.
The Nebraska blue book - 1918

Item 3
1917
The Farmers' review farm directory of Cass, Mason, Menard, and Sangamon counties, Illinois - 1917

Item 5
Indexed by Decatur County, Indiana, index of names of persons and of firms / compiled by Works Progress Administration of Indiana
Decatur County, Indiana, index of names of persons and of firms
United States. Works Progress Administration (Indiana)
Item 5
Decatur County, Indiana, index of names of persons and of firms
A Genealogical and biographical record of Decatur County, Indiana : compendium of national biography

Item 5
Indexed in Decatur County, Indiana, index of names of persons and of firms / compiled by Works Progress Administration of Indiana
Item 2
A Genealogical and biographical record of Decatur County, Indiana
Historical sketches of Fugit Township, Decatur County, Indiana : papers read at the old settlers' reunion held at Mt. Carmel, June 6, 1901, and other interesting facts

Item 5
Indexed in Decatur County, Indiana, index of names of persons and of firms / compiled by Works Progress Administration of Indiana
Item 9
Historical sketches of Fugit Township, Decatur County, Indiana
History of Decatur County, Indiana : its people, industries and institutions, with biographical sketches of representative citizens and genealogical records of many of the old families
Harding, Lewis Albert
Item 5
Indexed by Decatur County, Indiana, index of names of persons and of firms / compiled by Works Progress Administration of Indiana
Item 1
Another filming of v. 1-2., 1987.
Leading industries of the principal places in Decatur, Bartholomew, Jackson, and Lawrence Counties, Indiana : with a review of their manufacturing, mercantile & general business interests, advantageous location etc. including a brief historical and statistical sketch of their rise and progress

NEBRASKA Adams County, Snavely, Joseph C. - Z Antelope County, A - Z Arthur County, A - Z Banner County, A - Z Blaine County, A - Z Boone County, A - D
World War I Selective Service System draft registration cards, 1917-1918
United States. Selective Service System

NEBRASKA Saunders County, M - Z Scotts Bluff County, A - Sayre, Edw.
World War I Selective Service System draft registration cards, 1917-1918
United States. Selective Service System

NEBRASKA Scotts Bluff County, Sayre, Kenneth - Z Seward County, A - Z Sheridan County, A - K
Nebraska, World War I Selective Service System draft registration cards, 1917-1918
United States. Selective Service System

Item 3
1835 census of Cherokee Indians (Henderson roll) Tennessee list
Partial census of 1787 to 1791 of Tennessee as taken from the North Carolina land grants
McGhee, Lucy Kate
Item 4
Parts 1 and 2.
The Hughes & related families
Hughes, Ronald Coleman
Item 5
The Hughes & related families
Vass family and related families
Hughes, Ronald Coleman
Item 5
Vass family and related families
Thomas Norfleet : 1666 Society : a society to bring all Norfleet information together
Norfleet, Benjamin E.
Item 6
Thomas Norfleet : 1666 Society
Bible records of William Henry Hornsby of Seaford, York Co., VA : born 1857, also his obituary (all entries made by Wm. H. Hornsby except his own death)

Item 1
Deed index v. 1 1801-1865
Item 16
Deed index v. A 1801-1808
Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions minutes, v. 1-2, 1801-1806

Item 2
Minutes v. 1 1801-1803
Item 3
Minutes v. 2 1803-1806
Item 9
Minutes 1821-1824
Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, minute dockets, 1806-1814

Item 4
Minute docket 1806-1808
Item 5
Minute docket 1812-1814
County Court minutes, 1801-1824, Claiborne County, Tennessee
Historical Records Project (Tennessee)
Item 6
Another filming of County Court minutes, 1815-1817
Items 7-8
Another filming of Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions 1818-1821
Index to Quarterly Court records, 1826-1829

Item 10
Index to Quarterly Court records, 1826-1829
Will books, 1837-1865, Claiborne County, Tennessee
Historical Records Project (Tennessee)
Item 11
Another filming of record of wills v. A 1837-1846
Item 12
Another filming of record of wills v. B 1844-1850
Marriage records, 1838-1868, Claiborne County, Tennessee
Historical Records Project (Tennessee)
Item 13
Another filming of marriages v. 2 1838-1850
Item 14
Another filming of marriages v. 3 1850-1868
Claiborne County, Tennessee, cemetery records


Siehe auch

Schlagen Sie auch in anderen Wörterbüchern nach:

Einwanderung in die Vereinigten Staaten — Die Einwanderung in die Vereinigten Staaten beeinflusste maßgeblich die Demografie und Kulturgeschichte des Landes. Seit der Staatsgründung ließen sich in hoher Zahl Migranten aus religiösen, politischen oder wirtschaftlichen Motiven nieder oder… … Deutsch Wikipedia

Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika — United States of America Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika … Deutsch Wikipedia

USA — United States of America Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika … Deutsch Wikipedia

Einwanderung — Dieser Artikel oder Absatz stellt die Situation in Deutschland dar. Hilf mit, die Situation in anderen Ländern zu schildern … Deutsch Wikipedia

Einwanderung — Zuzug Zuwanderung Immigration * * * Ein|wan|de|rung 〈f. 20〉 Übertritt, Einreise in einen fremden Staat zur dauernden Übersiedlung, Zuzug von Landfremden Sy Immigration Ggs Auswanderung * * * Ein|wan|de|rung , die , en: das Einwandern… … Universal-Lexikon

Einwanderung aus der Türkei in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland — Die vermehrte Einwanderung aus der Türkei in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland setzte Anfang der 1960er Jahre zunächst als Arbeitsmigration mit offenem Zeithorizont ein. Begründet wurde sie durch die Unterzeichnung des Anwerbeabkommens zwischen der… … Deutsch Wikipedia

Einwanderung nach Australien — Die Geschichte Australiens beschreibt die Geschichte des Gebiets des heutigen australischen Bundes von der Zeit der ersten menschlichen Besiedlung an. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Geschichte der Bevölkerung 2 Marco Polos Berichte von Australien 3 Die… … Deutsch Wikipedia

Einwanderung nach Amerika — Mit der Einwanderung nach Amerika können zwei Ereignisse gemeint sein: Die vorgeschichtliche Einwanderung vor mindestens 11.500 Jahren, siehe Besiedlung Amerikas Die Einwanderung der weißen Siedler im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert in die USA, siehe… … Deutsch Wikipedia

Die Motten — Klassifikation nach ICD 10 A15 Tuberkulose der Atmungsorgane, bakteriologisch oder histologisch gesichert A16 Tuberkulose der Atmungsorgane, weder bakteriologisch noch histologisch gesichert … Deutsch Wikipedia

Geschichte der Juden in den USA — Die Geschichte der Juden in den USA beginnt im 17. Jahrhundert mit der niederländischen Besiedelung von Nieuw Amsterdam (New York City). Von Anfang an fanden Juden in Nordamerika größere Freiheit zur Bewahrung ihrer religiösen und kulturellen… … Deutsch Wikipedia