Political and Economic Integration over Time

The letters in our corpus convey that those German-speaking migrants who arrived during the first half of the nineteenth century felt swiftly integrated into and identified closely with the United States. Leaving an authoritarian and only loosely connected union of German states behind, migrants endorsed the experience of a comparatively “free” and “democratic” political reality and generally disapproved of German politics. Scholarship has shown that among ordinary German migrants the glorification of American values was widespread, against the backdrop of the military conscription and feudal, state, and church dues and taxes that people suffered at home (Roeber Reference Roeber, Barclay and Glaser-Schmidt1997: 40). During the interwar period, many objected to German politics but also expressed their hope that the Weimar Republic would consolidate and defeat the rise of Nazism. At the same time, increasingly critical comments about the United States became more widespread, in particular in response to the anti-German propaganda that was rife at the time.

It is noteworthy that political topics were a central concern in migrants’ letters irrespective of the time period or the writers’ socio-economic backgrounds. Judgments were informed by explicit comparisons of the origin and the host countries. Figure 4 visualizes the extent to which the content of the letters includes such political discussions, and distinguishes between explicitly “positive” and “negative” views related to politics in the United States and Germany, respectively.

Figure 4 Negative and positive views of two political systems.

The early wave of approval of U.S. politics included general appraisals of the United States as a free country (115_E_18500125; 154_E_18721006.1; 162_A_18541022; 270_A_18561128) that was not overly bureaucratic (154_E_18730318), and was open to migrants (140_H_18601109). Often highlighted were the low levels of compulsory church taxes (Abgaben), the absence of “Fürstengesindel” (literally, “aristocratic rabble”), and a perceived equality between people (140_C_18540129; 115_E_18500125). Some migrants who were religious felt that the freedom of conscience in the United States amounted to a genuine liberation (115_E_18510126; 140_G_18571028).

Such early impressions often led to decisions to affirm a new identity by volunteering to fight and defend the new home country (112_A_18650324; 115_E_18510126; 162_A_18620202), in sharp contrast to the military conscription practiced in the places of origin (154_E_18721006.1), and indeed some had emigrated precisely to avoid conscription (154_E_18730318). One also encounters remarks about migrants volunteering to fight in the Civil War (140_C_18610910) or the Spanish-American War (160_I_18980429). One letter writer opined that “human beings” (Menschen) rather than soldiers fought for the United States (320_A_18630330). Others conveyed pride in the Civil War achievements of Germans (140_I_18620330) and their contributions to the “greater good” in the United States (320_A_18650312).

Until around 1870–1871, positive political images of the United States were often accompanied by negative remarks about Germany (162_A_18541022; 152_C_18540716). Migrants valued the opportunity to participate in democratic politics and emphasized that Americans could govern themselves (270_A_18561128).Footnote ¹³ They described the openness they encountered in the United States and some enclosed newspaper clippings in their letters to exhibit the freedom of the press (115_A_18520613; 115_E_18510126).

Comparing this with German-speaking lands, migrants emphasized that people there suffered under its monarchy, which had entrenched a hierarchical mentality (115_E_18510126; 115_E_18590415; 140_H_18760525; 270_A_18561128). They criticized the lack of freedom of expression there (115_E_18560413; 170_F_187X0114), and the excessively high taxes and various municipal fees that had impoverished the population (116_A_18860105; 152_C_18550407; 162_A_18541022). In a context of comparatively fewer state constraints on individual freedoms, migrants stressed their opportunities, noting for example that it was easier to build a new life if one was prepared to work hard (112_A_18690328). Even those who failed economically acknowledged their newly gained freedoms (220_B_18850724).

As the nineteenth century progressed, the patterns in how writers identified with the political system become more diffuse. The differences between the political systems became less stark as Germany democratized and developed. The transatlantic discourse came to include more critical remarks about U.S. politics, including the increasing restrictions on immigration (115_E_18540614), incompetent politicians ignoring their constituents, the failure of leaders to govern the economy (115_G_18601118; 140_H_18580214; 140_H_18641002; 320_A_18670324), and the gap between elected representatives and the population at large (200_D_18740104; 270_A_18561128; 320_A_18670615). The internalized expectations borne out of a growing familiarity with U.S. democracy are apparent in letter-writers’ criticisms of politics there. Political reforms were now also underway in their places of origin, and the increasingly mixed descriptions of U.S. politics may well have shaped the expectations of those who did not or had not yet emigrated.

Starting in the interwar period, a more critical attitude vis-à-vis politics in general prevailed in the letters. Such criticisms emphasized disillusionments with the realities of U.S. democracy: its inability to respond to the problems affecting ordinary people in times of crisis (221_A_19391109; 280_B_19330503; 281_C_19340626; 281_C_19491221), the growing tax burden (221_D_19660324), and the inflated bureaucracy (221_A_19380112). Criticism of politics often cuts both ways during this period. Migrants complained about Germany's incompetent and divided political leadership (113_B_19250814; 221_A_19400106) and voiced concerns about the future of the Weimar Republic in light of ongoing political quarrels (280_B_19310219; 320_M_19211205).

Personal financial situations and views about the economic system more broadly are prominent in many letters in connection with the writers’ sense of participation in U.S. society. From early on, many emphasized the opportunities for economic progress they encountered. Throughout the nineteenth century, the possibility of quickly setting up one's own small business or farm fostered a sense of integration (115_D_18550128; 140_H_18570726; 150_B_18920124; 162_A_18550617). Many letters highlight that little in the way of savings was required to succeed since land remained cheap. The potential for economic independence was not determined by the time of arrival or the length of time that had passed since. Some newly arrived migrants enthusiastically described the conditions of the American labor market, with its shorter working days and flatter hierarchies, both of which contributed to feelings of quick integration (250_C_18840529). Societal modernization and technical progress reinforced these initial personal impressions. Across factories and farms, migrants admired technical advances that promised a better quality of life. Thanks to mechanization, household work, too, became easier (140_C_18540129), which allowed for leisure time, something largely unknown in the migrants’ places of origin (140_H_18630824). Although discussions of economic topics became fewer over the course of the century, positive attitudes prevailed. Personal economic success frequently featured prominently when migrants described their integration into U.S. society and their perceptions of distance from the “old fatherland” (150_B_19060320).

Despite reaping quick benefits, migrants maintained that “real” economic integration took time. One had to learn the language in order to succeed. Positive views of the U.S. economy were also tempered by criticisms. The letters emphasized that one had to become accustomed to the “Sitten und Gebräuche” (manners and customs) (112_A_18690328; 152_C_18540716; 154_E_18670202), that economic success could be short-lived (112_A_18580118), that prices for vital goods had increased (112_A_18640802; 115_B_18590605; 115_E_18560413; 140_I_18640916; 152_C_18641103), and that a lack of social protection led to exploitation and an individualization of risk (162_A_18641113; 200_E_18800926).

In the aftermath of World War I, perceptions of integration changed across the different generations, from the descendants of those who had arrived in the nineteenth century and for those who came after 1918. The latter frequently acknowledged their advantageous economic situation, even during or after times of economic crisis (113_B_19260916; 113_B_19270507; 113_D_19281105; 113_D_19290107; 201_A_19270503; 201_A_19280619; 221_A_19371024), but they also complained about their separation from the homeland (Heimat) (221_A_19260314). They stressed that they clearly felt “German” (221_A_19390921) and did not feel culturally integrated. More generally, they complained that people in the United States generally had low levels of cultural awareness (201_A_19270920). The development gap that had initially sustained feelings of integration throughout the previous century now led to concerns about a personal laziness that migrants perceived among their fellows who had grown accustomed to the comforts of modern life (113_C_19251213). The economic crisis after 1929 evoked still more critical evaluations of the U.S. economy. Even before the onset of the Great Depression, migrants had expressed frustrations about difficulties in finding work and the low salaries they received (113_A_19311204; 113_D_19301008; 201_A_19270920; 221_A_19260610; 281_C_19281226). One newly arrived migrant reported in 1929 that the United States was no longer “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Schlaraffenland), though they still praised the lower U.S. taxes compared to Germany (113_D_19290107).

As with all historical primary sources, one must consider what might not have been mentioned or archived. That only those who had a connection to Germany wrote letters certainly accentuates the ambiguous impact that time spent as a migrant had on feelings of integration. Moreover, our corpus contains few observations by second-generation migrants about integration, probably partly because they maintained less contact with relatives and family friends in Germany. When our data source is letters, attachment to the homeland is an inherent selection bias and they tell us nothing about those who did not write “home.”

Overall, the letters show that the time spent in the host country is a poor indicator of integration. The sense of economic and political integration felt by first-generation migrants was dependent on the perceptions of significant differences between the home and host societies. Economic participation and political satisfaction reflect those larger dynamics more than do shifts in the views of individual migrants over time. The gradual increase in criticism of U.S. economic and political conditions expressed in the letters does not suggest a lack of integration. In fact, many of those critical remarks resulted from a longer exposure to the system and a resultant sense of integration that enabled the critique in the first place. Depending on the political and, to a lesser extent, the economic climates in the country of origin and the country of destination, the balance shifts back and forth between the two poles of this transnational identity. At least so long as these letters were being written, the simultaneity of belonging remained a constant.

Migrant Networks and Integration

The long period of mass migration illustrates the importance of social networks. Family, friendship, and neighborhood networks, sustained by the letters, fundamentally affected the decision to emigrate and facilitated mass chain-migration. Thomas and Znaniecki were among the first to draw attention to the importance of ethnic networks and transnational links. Examining experiences of Polish peasant migrants in the United States, they traced how a distinctive Polish-American society emerged over the nineteenth century that blended U.S. and Polish values: “It is this Polish-American society, not American society, that constitutes the social milieu into which the immigrant who comes from Poland becomes incorporated and to whose standards and institutions he must adapt himself” (Reference Thomas and Znaniecki1927: ix). Their research suggests that the social networks of migrants in the host country engender a distinctive sense of belonging grounded in a particular, group-based migration experience. Our research confirms the complexity of migrant identities, but also highlights the parallel importance of linkages to the homeland, German-American networks, and social interactions beyond this community in shaping integration and identities.

The letters provide ample evidence of the role that German-American networks played in integration. By 1900, German-speaking districts were part of almost every large American city (Bergquist Reference Bergquist1984: 9). Daily encounters between migrants from German-speaking lands grounded a seemingly self-contained community.Footnote ¹⁴ A sense of “Germanness” was further enhanced by a shared interest in preserving the German language, or opposition to the Anglo-American prohibition of alcohol, which was an integral part of German associational life (Kazal Reference Kazal2004: 40).

The reliance on networks of family members and acquaintances during migration strengthened a German identity. Like many other Europeans, Germans lacked a clearly defined and recognized nation-state identity for most of the nineteenth century (Berger Reference Berger1997; Dann Reference Dann1996). Migrants arrived in the United States without a strong self-identification as “Germans” by nationality, but with specific cultural and regional German identities. Moreover, “Deutsch-Amerika” included migrants from Austria, Luxembourg, and Alsace, as well as Romanian and Russian Germans and Swiss (Helbich Reference Helbich1988: 48). Miller argues that “Irish immigrants’ correspondence, memoirs, and other personal testaments not only reflected but even helped create the categories of ‘Irish’ identity that emerged in contemporary political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic” (Reference Miller2003: 9). A similar dynamic is apparent among the German-speaking migrants in the United States.

Letter writers often emphasized the support they received through German-American networks. Such reports reassured those who were contemplating emigration, and their families and friends around them. Such support could be practical (113_D_19281105; 140_I_18621226; 320_G_19581210) or psychological, compensating for “Heimweh” (the longing for home) (200_F_18801029). Close networks of families and friends also provided a buffer against culture shock (Helbich Reference Helbich1988: 27).

Through their transnational networks migrants formed an idea about the political, economic, and social situation in the United States. The large movement of people “could take place only when the alternatives were clearly pictured in men's minds” (Taylor Reference Taylor1971: 66). Grabbe argues, “Ironically, those with little or no access to published information were often the best informed” (Reference Grabbe, Barclay and Glaser-Schmidt1997: 82). Personal word-of-mouth advice could be lifesaving, given widespread attempts to take advantage of ill-informed migrants (Guillet Reference Guillet1963). Writers also warned prospective migrants of the risks they faced if they could not rely on such networks (320_E_18830529).

In the first half of the nineteenth century whole family units migrated, either together or over time. They sometimes set up their new lives together, for example by jointly buying a farm (140_I_18621226). In the century's second half, as migration patterns changed, networks included members of extended families, who tended to feel responsible for supporting the newly arrived, whose journeys they had often encouraged and co-financed (282_C_18610715; 112_A_18680920; 221_A_19260525). The trends are similar to those Wells identified in his study of Irish migrants, in which he highlights how, in the absence of institutional assistance, many migrants left home with prepaid tickets and pocket money sent by relatives or friends in the United States (Reference Wells1991: 12).

The letters recount many experiences of being treated well, and being invited into people's homes upon arrival (154_E_18670202). Family networks also helped migrants to weather financial crises beyond the arrival period (140_J_18521020). By the 1920s, such experiences were no longer typical, but were still featured in the letters written from areas of concentrated German settlements. Newly arrived migrants’ letters tell of a range of acquaintances from “home” visiting them, of going to a German barber, or consuming German food and beer (113_D_19281105; 201_A_19280420; 221_A_19260525).

Once they had arrived, the migrants in their letters distinguished deep friendships and family links from more superficial ties to acquaintances in German circles (282_B_18340716; 200_D_18690329). “Old” German networks were maintained and “new” ones formed, for instance through marriage to other Germans, either acquaintances from “home” or members of the migrant community. There were calls for help to identify suitable marriage partners back home (140_H_18580214; 113_F_19270512), or in the German migrant community (140_H_18670912). In the absence of their closest relatives, the majority of migrants actively maintained links with extended family members in the United States, for example by making them godparents to their children (140_I_18600417) or by establishing new traditions, such as spending major holidays with a particular set of acquaintances (201_A_19280420). Visits by German acquaintances often evoked a nostalgic sense of “Heimat” (homeland) (282_A_18340412; 154_E_18670202), particularly around special occasions such as Christmas or New Year's Eve (200_E_18801226; 221_A_19281230; 113_B_19270104).

Old neighborhood ties were reactivated in migration: for instance, meetings of fellow “Neukirchner” (inhabitants of the German town Neukirchen) in Milwaukee or Buffalo (113_D_19281105) are recorded as significant, pleasant experiences. Others wrote that they often met people they had previously known from Germany (152_C_18690117). Remarks about how these regional ties facilitated integration into the new economic system are striking. At times, former colleagues still worked together, which enabled the continuation of German professional networks (281_A_19261022). In sum, geographical concentration and socio-economic networks fostered both integration into the host society and a “German identity.”

Many letters reference German churches, associations, and neighborhoods as key spaces for activating or preserving a shared sense of belonging. Both Lutherans and Catholics maintained German-language services, and bigger religious communities founded private schools, but German lessons were also available in many state schools. Mentions of social gatherings after church involving meals, beer, and games at a German brewery or restaurant, and dances or other events organized by German associations, are often interspersed with reports about difficult working conditions (140_H_18630824; 140_I_1866091; 201_A_19290218; 221_A_19260426; 281_C_19501112). References to a diversity of associations, from churches and Sunday schools to gymnastics clubs, choirs, and book clubs, reveal the density of these organizational networks (200_D_18691022; 200_B_18790308). The letters convey the wide availability of organized networks, especially throughout the nineteenth century (115_E_18610107; 200_D_18691022). The writers tried to reassure family members “at home” with mentions of the many German newspapers, which also served as places to find jobs (221_A_19260426). In part, the Germans self-organized in response to the as-yet-underdeveloped American state presence in education and other spheres of public service provision. Nineteenth-century American society proved open to migrant self-organization and encouraged it. In turn, the cultural solidarity of an internally diverse migrant group was invoked, for instance when state policy changed to pressure schools to stop the teaching of German, around the century's turn (Gerber Reference Gerber1984: 32).

The migrant community was made up of active members of German organizations as well as those who only opted into certain events (160_I_19070618). Regular encounters based on formal membership could bring considerable peer pressure to bear. For instance, all members of one German choir joined the German Regiment in the 1860s. Key reasons given for signing up were that German officers were in charge, that the pay was good, and a fear of being singled out as cowardly (320_A_18610912).

Recent scholarship has highlighted the role of women's organizations as a long-overlooked pillar of the German-American community (Ortlepp Reference Ortlepp2004). German women organized for many different causes, from the Ladies’ Auxiliaries to the male gymnastic clubs engaged in fundraising, to Freethinkers’ associations, labor unions, and socialist organizations. Some of the associations were built on traditional gender roles, while others actively called them into question: “Both approaches overlapped with the idea that women had a crucial function as cultural mediators who would pass the banner of German-American cultural traditions to the next generation” (Ortlepp Reference Ortlepp2003: 442). The family-based authorship of the majority of letters blurs the lines between the gender roles in the German networks and emphasizes a collective experience of being part of a community. Letters written by women, especially single women, frequently contrast their new sense of liberation and self-confidence with their lives “back home.” Kate, writing to her friend Mary in the interwar period, explained throughout her letters how she participated in social activities, how delighted she was to be able to interact freely with men, and that divorce could be filed easily in the United States, which protected women from domestic violence (e.g., 113_B_19250814; 113_B_19260501; 113_E_19270920). Other women wrote about how caring their husbands had become in America (115_C_18510126), and they contrasted their own independence with the situation of their German mothers (320_A_18650312).

By the interwar period, there were still frequent references to German social events (201_A_19280420), but the letters now conveyed a sense of having to make an effort to seek out German neighborhoods (221_A_19270112; 221_A_19380109; 221_A_19390102; 221_A_19400106). They mentioned the lack of occasions on which to celebrate German traditions, which reveals a combination of weakening organizational ties, an overall decrease in the bottom-up demand for and willingness to maintain organizations, and more diffuse patterns of settlement and intermarriage (281_C_19281226).

Families and acquaintances often dispersed widely across the United States. Distances unimaginable to inhabitants of a small German village became “normal” dots on the migrants’ mental maps. The developing postal system (John Reference John1995) was an important factor that enabled Germans in the country to stay informed about the whereabouts and activities of extended family members and acquaintances, even though there were fewer reported visits (281_C_19471120). Personal networks remained important nonetheless, both as a form of insurance and as mental reference points.

The concentrated settlement of migrants was not synonymous with either community homogeny or harmony, and the German migrant community displayed neither (Nadel Reference Nadel1990). Analyzing the socio-economic conditions in Chicago toward the end of the nineteenth century, Keil emphasizes differences within and between parts of the city with regard to employment opportunities, age, and qualifications (Reference Keil1984: 75). The urban setting also fractionalized German-America, and intergenerational relations were sometimes strained, just as Miller illustrates for the Irish migrants (Reference Miller1985). In some letters we find complaints about fellow Germans. For instance, newly arrived migrants who were economically successful tended to look down on those Germans who had been in the United States for longer (221_A_19280429). These divisions do not map directly onto migrant generations.

Migrants increasingly complained about the expectation that they would support family members and acquaintances financially (140_J_18521020; 160_I_18960626). Amidst economic uncertainty, there were warnings that even family members could prove unreliable (113_D_19280103) or powerless to help (140_J_18521020). The letters also record the initial frustrations of struggling newcomers, sometimes directed at relatives who had encouraged them to migrate (154_E_188503XX).

Our analysis confirms the importance of social networks at all stages of the migration process, starting with the preparations ahead of emigration, and then on to the practical and ideational support of both family and friendship-based networks and German-American cultural and religious organizations. The latter created a focal point for both practical support and a sense of community belonging. While historians have focused mostly on one type of network or a set of organizations at a time, our corpus highlights both the coexistence and interplay of personal (family- and friendship-based) and associational networks. Both fostered integration into the economic and political system of the host society but also maintained identities or built new ones.

Political Events Involving Origin and Destination Countries

German migrants retained an interest in the politics of their home regions and the German-speaking lands in general. Some 15 percent of the letters reference particular events “back home,” and clear patterns are evident. Migrants told of regularly following the news in German newspapers in the United States and, where accessible, via radio. They frequently asked for detailed updates on what they had read or heard. In moments of crisis, especially, they were eager for trustworthy information from families and acquaintances. During major international events pitting the United States against Germany, especially the two world wars, this need for “unbiased information” was expressed with great urgency (160_I_19150101; 320_H_19331215).

By the mid-nineteenth century, an “America for the Americans” attitude began to take hold, based on a presumed link between migrants, crimes, and pauperism. Formal deportations from the United States began in 1855 (Coleman Reference Coleman1972: 227). The “Know Nothing Movement” conveyed the changes in popular mood after 1853 (Anbinder Reference Anbinder1992). Such movements fostered skepticism, but migrants initially saw anti-immigration rhetoric as unrepresentative of thinking across the United States (115_E_18560413). Nevertheless, letters echoed American political discussions about restricting immigration or making naturalization more difficult (160_I_18960626). Overall, though, during the nineteenth century new migrants continued to emphasize the “freudenstrahlende Zukunft” (a joyfully prosperous future) they expected to achieve (160_G_18880117).

Increases in migration from Italy, Poland, Russia, and the Balkans around the turn of the century fostered a hostile attitude, rooted in German feelings of superiority vis-à-vis other migrant groups. German “ethnic” community leaders, such as the editor and businessman Heinrich Rattermann, emphasized how dependent the United States was on German migrant culture (Dobbert Reference Dobbert1980: 80–94). In certain states, like Wisconsin and Illinois, the use of foreign languages was already being actively discouraged by 1890 (Kloss Reference Kloss and Fishman1966). Meanwhile, policy proposals circulated according to which foreigners would have to live in the United States for twenty-one years before becoming eligible for naturalization (Coleman Reference Coleman1972: 220). Despite changing attitudes toward migrants, integration through naturalization remained relatively easy until about 1920. After three years, migrants could declare their intent to naturalize, and after five they could become citizens (Grams Reference Grams and Fendl2013: 22).

Moments of political crisis reactivated links to the country of origin and heightened a sense of transnational belonging. During World War I, “hyphenated Americans” came under severe pressure, particularly once the United States entered the war in April of 1917 (Wüstenbecker Reference Wüstenbecker2007). But even before that letters indicated how hard it was to obtain accurate information about Germany, and expressed distrust in the U.S. media (160_I_19150101). Judging by our text corpus, many Germans in the United States clearly identified as Germans again and expressed solidarity with Germany, sometimes even second-and third-generation migrants (320_M_19150104).

The rise of European nationalism before, during, and after World War I coincided with assimilation pressures in the United States (Scheffer and Waters Reference Scheffer and Waters2011: 224). Contemporary U.S. publications expressed critical and even hostile views of migration before the war. Frank Julian Warne, former secretary of the New York State Immigration Commission, stoked fear about an “invasion” by migrants from Russia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, or Italy (Reference Warne1913: 53). One commentator stated, “Whereas the German importations were at first of good class, people of substance, now they were the refuse of the country” (Fairchild Reference Fairchild1913: 44). Later Warne emphasized the need to take precautionary measures: “By all means, this great movement of peoples should be restricted by legislation within the narrow channel of the legitimate demand of our industries for unskilled labor” (Reference Warne1916: 360).Footnote ¹⁵ Fears that European conflicts might lead to unrest among different migrant groups fed into state efforts to integrate them into a single, collective identity. In 1915, 4th of July festivities ran under the motto “Many People but One Nation,” a precursor of the “America First” policy of 1916. The war subsequently shattered the belief that American society could easily integrate its migrant peoples (Higham Reference Higham2002 [1955]).

World War I was a key political event for both the country of origin and the country of destination. It was a moment when migrants explicitly reflected upon their identity and their relationships with both places. Letters reveal that the process of identification with Germany proved significantly more complex than any clear-cut rupture. The constant fear of losing loved ones and actual news about war deaths provide the clearest examples of this (320_M_19151012). The wars also interrupted travel links, reduced migration flows, and made transnational communication less certain (160_I_1916XXXX.1). These factors together increased the awareness of both the links and the distance between the letter writers.

In the midst of crisis, some migrants described their astonishment at feeling more “German” and hoping for German victory when they had thought of themselves as already “American.” They also highlighted how agitated Germans in the United States were about what was happening in Europe (154_G_19150106; 160_H_19151011). Transnational identities could turn into split identities. Second-generation migrants, for example, expressed regret and disapproval of U.S. policies “prolonging the war,” while they still embraced the United States as “our country” (320_M_19151012). The letters in this way point to the importance of political crises as moments when “ways of being” become “ways of belonging.” Connections with families and friends intensified through letter writing, more targeted exchanges of information, fundraising, and care packages. Organizationally, the two world wars and the postwar periods also provided an impetus for German networks to regroup through fundraising efforts to help war widows, orphans, and the wounded in Germany (160_I_19160319).

During and after the war, the space for public expressions of a German-American identity eroded (Kazal Reference Kazal2004: 172). Various states across the country (including Ohio, Indiana, and California) forbade teaching German in schools and public expressions of Germanness in general (Capozzola Reference Capozzola2008: 181). The National German-American Alliance, and to a lesser extent its successor the German American Citizens League of the United States, strove to keep the younger generation within its ethnically defined fold. That said, the Alliance's efforts conflicted with older divisions within the migrant communities related to class or geographical origins (Kazal Reference Kazal2004: 130). Higham called the disintegration of the German migrant community after World War I “the most familiar and spectacular case of collective assimilation” (Reference Higham1981: 9). The “100 percent American” campaign of the 1920s obliged Germans to retreat from their ethnic identity, while “being white” offered an alternative collective identity based on citizenship.

In the interwar period, the ties between the migrants and their home countries reemerged on the European political agenda. The Weimar Republic established a Reichswanderungsamt (Reich Emigration Office) (O'Donnell, Bridenthal, and Reagin Reference O'Donnell, Bridenthal and Reagin2005), which worked to discourage Germans from leaving the country (Fisch Reference Fisch and Arnold2010: 73). As one contemporary observer noted, “Each European nation, to strengthen further its own nationalism, is sending out a call to its own well-to-do migrants in other countries to return home, at least temporarily” (Kellor Reference Kellor1920: 69). Critical contemporary observers in the United States warned of potential political consequences of the incomplete nature of immigrant integration. Kellor found that “a fourth generation of native-born Germans of native stock favor the fatherland in preference to America” (ibid.: 25). She insisted that “foreign influence” on migrant communities was significant across generations.

Our corpus reveals diversity and contradictions in the reactions and orientations of the migrants. It contains ample references to migrants trying to resist the erosion of their associational life by continuing to congregate in explicitly German circles (113_D_19281105, 113_F_19270512, 201_A_19280420, 221_A_19270112). Those who had emigrated to the United States during the period of the Weimar Republic, possibly based on political motivations, wrote in their letters how quickly they felt at home in the United States (221_A_19260321), and sometimes referred to the “holy U.S.A.” (201_A_19270503). Some letters expressed deep disappointment at German politics and, as one put it, “German culture sinking to a level of 100 years earlier.” The writer saw in it the cause of the waning of a once-respectful attitude toward German immigrants in the United States (281_C_19330803).

As mentioned earlier, the World War II period is not one of the main periods covered by our corpus, which therefore provides only glimpses into identities at that time. The 1939 World Exhibition in New York, which Germany did not take part in, provided a focal point in discussions about politics. Some migrants expressed regret that Germany was not represented, while others welcomed Hitler's decision to decline to participate in view of Roosevelt's attitude toward Germany (221_A_19390429). Moreover, German-Americans frequently asked in their letters how best to help those at home from afar, and offered to send scarce products or money. Some letters mention local and national initiatives of German societies in the United States to collect money for those affected by the wars, and some describe migrants’ confusion, sympathy, concern, or helplessness regarding the plight of their home country (221_A_19390921).

During the war, Germans in the United States had to hide pro-German attitudes. Comments in favor of the Nazi regime or denunciation by a neighbor risked an entry in the FBI's Custodial Detention Index (Krammer Reference Krammer1996: 583). Krammer conducted interviews with the descendants of people arrested and mentions that linguistic difficulties sometimes delayed negotiations with detainees who hardly spoke English. Despite public pressure to assimilate, and contrary to public perception, the private side of integration was clearly complex and English language knowledge continued to vary, as Wilkerson and Salmons highlight (Reference Wilkerson and Salmons2008).

Some letters from the World War II period reference the “anti-German” American media (221_A_19390903; 221_A_19390924) and the difficulty of discussing German affairs (221_A_19390924), especially for those not living in urban areas with concentrated German settlements (221_A_19390921; 221_A_19390728). There were more explicit remarks about a deep “hatred of Germans” in the United States and a belief that one had to keep quiet in public so as to avoid arguments or physical violence (221_A_19390924). Thus, even though most migrants had retreated from publicly “being German” before the war, sometimes when wartime letters complain about U.S. anti-German attitudes the writers suggest they are politically motivated and intended to distract from domestic problems such as unemployment. Letters also express disapproval of U.S. political actions, and some migrants declare their solidarity with Germany (320_M_1932120; 221_A_19390921; 221_A_19390924). This was remarkable given the risk that letters might be read by the U.S. security services (Krammer Reference Krammer1996). These expressions of sympathy for German politics were infrequent, and overall migrants reinvigorated their links with the homeland. This was true even among some who had migrated in the nineteenth century but renewed their links to Germany, and maintained them even after the war's end. Letters of the 1940s and 1950s often tell of individual and collective efforts to organize support for people in Germany. Postwar expressions of hope for German reunification and peace accompanied initiatives such as assembling care packages (281_D_19490603). People were greatly concerned over the possibility that German soldiers might end up fighting against each other across the inner-German dividing line (281_C_19501112; 281_C_19480421).