Immigrant Americanization During World War I
Not surprisingly, given that the war was against Germany, Americanizers devoted much of their attention to German Americans, but this focus did not spare other ethnic groups, including Norwegian Americans, from expectations of uncompromised loyalty.
During Word War I, as part of a campaign to engender patriotic orthodoxy, national and state agencies systematically pressured immigrants to “Americanize,” to embrace undivided national loyalty and conform to appropriate social and cultural norms. Persistent concerns about aliens’ willingness and capacity to assimilate dated from the early Republic, yet the nation concurrently had welcomed most foreign arrivals. Ethnic enclaves proliferated, allowing the immigrants and their progeny to preserve and perpetuate many of their “Old World” mores. Tolerance of this foreign presence changed abruptly as the U.S. prepared for and then fought in the Great War. Government agents and concerned citizens intensely monitored aliens’ behavior. Even groups theretofore considered to be the “right kind” of immigrants— those from northern and western Europe—came under intense scrutiny and experienced uncompromising demands to jettison their purportedly subversive foreign attributes and engage in properly patriotic American practices.
To Americanizers, World War I was a clash of nations, not mere armies, and even the prospect of the U.S. playing a belligerent role demanded unequivocal cohesion. Tis imperative could not be left to chance, to the whims of individuals or groups. Even before the U.S. declared war, national leaders foresaw the need to utilize every resident’s strengths in order to meet the potential demands of a military engagement. Toward this end, Congress in 1916 created the Council of National Defense, envisioning it as public/private collaboration to promote readiness, and it then called upon governors to establish state and county councils. Involvement in combat intensifed the groups’ eforts, and activities at all levels focused on immigrants. Working with other agencies, the councils made a priority of “welding of the many races and nationalities comprising America’s thirteen million foreign
born and thirty-three million of foreign origin into a unifed American people back of the fghting line,” designating it “a task of large importance to the successful persecution of the war.”1
Iowans dutifully pursued this directive. An un-dated State Council of Defense Resolution, prepared by Secretary Herbert Metcalf, made clear the “need in Iowa and in the country of militant patriotism, aggressive patriotism, the patriotism that will not tolerate treason in any form or in any man, the patriotism that will gladly make sacrifces for our country in the time of its great need.” On the battlefelds, the U.S. was “fghting for its very life,” and defeat would mean German subjugation of U.S. freedom. Some Americans may have presumed the right to dissent—equated with public sympathy for Germany—but that liberty ceased to exist after the United States declared war. Tereafter, all Iowans had an obligation to champion “fghting red-blooded patriotism” and condemn every traitorous presence in their midst. Proper behavior included support for U.S. troops, “soldiers in spirit and heart,” who would be “an indomitable and irresistible force on the western front,” as well as loyalty to the Wilson Administration and other government ofcials. Expectations of conformity extended to all parts of the state, to its churches, schools, and workplaces. Dedication to the nation at this moment of crisis, averred the Scott County Defense Council, was a responsibility which obliged all Americans to contribute based on “ability,” not “willingness.”2
Everyone could fnd some way to advance these aims. Te Defense Council and its subordinate units intended to mobilize the state’s resources “in such a manner as to make them available for war” and enhance patriotism through educational programs and public speeches. To accomplish the former, it sought to conserve pertinent commodities, prevent speculation, assist farmers in maximizing yields, and promote
community gardening. One proposal called for establishing a new state moto: “To waste food or let it waste is a crime.” Metcalf urged businesses to tailor their pursuit of profts so as to meet current exigencies. Retailers and merchants, for example, could make only one delivery-run per day. Te Defense Council also took action against local companies accused of hoarding. To promote public enthusiasm and engender a greater sense of national allegiance, the State Council’s Bureau of Speakers, headed by University of Iowa professor Glenn M. Terry, organized patriotic forensic contests at schools. Te Bureau also scheduled four “Minute Men” addresses, sponsored by the National Committee on Public Information, designed to commend America’s part in the war.3 In all of these endeavors, the Council paid special attention to the foreign-born and their children.
Purported dangers emanating from a lack of immigrant assimilation ranged from practical difculties to disruptive behaviors, all of which detrimentally afected the nation’s ability to wage war. For the military, the inability to speak English contributed to problems among recruits and conscripts. Once recruits were in training camps, their failure to understand orders and instructions retarded their preparation for duty. Among civilians, the use of foreign languages reportedly contributed to subversion. “AntiAmerican propaganda to convert the un-American masses into an anti-American population,” contended the National Council, “is being conducted among aliens by enemies of the United States.” Agent-provocateurs fomented discontent among foreign-born workers, leading to strikes and other
industrial disruptions. Te Council’s presumptions ignored the possibility of loyalty amidst ethnic diversity.4 Prevailing sentiment dismissed any notion of legitimate opposition and anything deemed to be anti-war drew sharp rebuke. Immigrant disloyalty seemingly existed in every corner of the state. “Tere are whole neighborhoods of foreign-born people in Iowa,” reported the Burlington Gazette, “where the people refuse to support any of the activities of the government on behalf of the war.” Seditious behaviors allegedly included refusal to sign food-conservation pledge cards or participate in Liberty Loan drives, campaigns to sell government bonds to fnance the war. Under the banner “Claim of Treason,” the Des Moines News reported extensive disloyalty among Hardin County German Americans, whom—the paper contended— had been agitated by the local foreign-language press. Te Des Moines Capital—in all capital letters—similarly called on residents to “STAMP OUT TREASON IN IOWA. Germans attracted particular ire, but reports from an unidentifed town also accused “Hollanders” of attempting to undermine “American schools,” simply by trying to create parochial academies. Based on assertions of Holland’s neutrality, the ofending academies purportedly refused to raise the American fag, as required by State law. Even presumably loyal schools, regardless of whether they primarily served immigrant communities, came under pressure to end the designated-astreasonous practice of teaching foreign languages.5
In November 1917, Governor William Harding and the Defense Council mounted a concerted campaign “to discontinue the teaching of the German language” in Iowa’s
Crowd on town street during Sauerkraut Day celebration, waiting in line for the celebrated food, Germania, Iowa, circa 1912. The name “Germania” was changed to “Lakota” in 1917, due to anti-German sentiment created by World War I. Photographer: William Shirley. State Historical Society of Iowa, Des Moines, 1991.14.33 William Shirley Collection. Used with permission.
or
public schools, and by January 1918, the Defense Council had sent over 5,000 appeals to boards of education. Local ofcials along with concerned citizens assiduously looked for non-compliance. “While it is complementary to our German people to have this language taught,” the Council rationalized, “it is against every patriotic interest. Tis language assists in keeping our people apart while unity is necessary if the republic is to continue.” If the lessons could not be stopped immediately, teachers should remove any part of the instruction which glorifed Germany or its population No text should contain a picture of the Kaiser or related royalty. Interest in social harmony, not prejudice, proclaimed the Council, motivated these actions. Discontinuance of German instruction would bring “our people together with a common language, believing thus they would act more patriotically and more essentially with a common purpose.”6
Perceptions of a hostile foreign presence in Iowa libraries also aroused considerable contention. Believing that “proGerman sources” had tendered inappropriate materials to various collections, State Defense Council Chairman Lafayette
Young called for the removal “of all books misrepresenting the war in favor of the German Empire.” Te egregious volumes, Young contended, either defended Germany’s invasion of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania, or portrayed France and Great Britain as the pre-war aggressors. Deliberately deceitful authors wanted to circulate a scenario in which Germany had been assaulted and forced to defend itself. Tese misrepresentations, the Defense Council believed, perverted the proper interpretation that the war was a confict between Germany’s devotion to “the divine right of kings” and America’s attachment to “the rule of the people.” To protect Iowa youth, and make sure that they learned “the facts,” libraries should eliminate any ofending tomes. “We must look after the rising generation and must see that they are not deceived,” concluded Young. Herbert Metcalf went further, seeking the destruction of every book in all state libraries which in any way “laud[ed] the Huns.”7
Purported disloyalty in churches similarly vexed the Americanizers. Te chair of the Clarence Board of Education reported cessation of German classes in its schools, but voiced
The “Babel Proclamation.” Proclamation of Iowa Governor William Harding ordering that any public conversation
oration be conducted exclusively in the English language. May 23, 1918 Records of the Governor’s Ofce (William Harding Admin.), State Archives of Iowa. State Historical Society of Iowa, Des Moines. Used with permission.
concerns about its continued use at religious institutions. Metcalf’s reply showed the era’s extremism. It was, he believed, “high time that German Lutheran ministers be invited to preach to their congregations in good old American.” Along with its campaign to end the teaching of foreign languages, the Defense Council was doing all that it could to eradicate the “menace to American life and American ideals” wrought by non-English preaching. Metcalf did recognize—and to a limited extent respect—freedom of religion. No person or agency, he explained to one correspondent, had the authority to prevent foreign-language use in churches. Instead, he suggested using persuasion and cooperation when dealing with pastors who spoke from the pulpit in other than English. For example, the county’s Council of Defense could invite representatives from the ofending congregation to a parlay and suggest that they adhere to an English-only policy. But, should that approach fail, it would not be “strictly contrary to good ethics to force these people to discontinue such [foreign language] services....”8 Exactly how such coercion would be applied, by parties who lacked legal sanction, Metcalf did not clarify.
Other bad practices presumed to afict the state included opposition to conscription. “We thank the young men of Iowa for their cheerful acceptance of the selective draft and their prompt obedience to the law,” stated the Council of Defense, impugning the patriotism of those who objected. U.S. Senator William S. Kenyon concurred. He had tried to keep the U.S. out of the war, but once it was declared, he advocated for its aggressive prosecution. To meet the need for troops, Kenyon suggested such novel means as allowing former President Teddy Roosevelt to reprise his Rough Rider recruitment of the Spanish-American War, but he also saw conscription as an essential part of assembling a sufcient fghting-force. Iowans would not necessarily like the draft, but they were “to a man enthusiastically behind the Government in any steps it may take. . . .” As there was “no such word as fail in the lexicon of America,” Kenyon envisioned every man in the heartland doing his part to bring the war to a victorious conclusion. Tis would include valiant service in the military, similar to that which Iowans had contributed in past wars. Use of the draft would ensure that naturalized-immigrants would not shirk this duty.9
Public pronouncements need not refer explicitly to immigrants in order to send them a clear message. Declared one state resolution: “No man can by loyal to this country who is not whole-heartedly for the United States and her allies.” Tose who held split national afliations had to examine their beliefs, their “hearts,” as did those who feigned allegiance to the United States while keeping an attachment to a foreign nation. Association with Berlin, shorthand for the German government, was especially bad. Remedial action always should be the preferred manner of addressing this abhorrent conduct, but apt punishment must await the truly recalcitrant. Te time had come for anyone harboring divided loyalties to make a choice, to be either an American or a traitor. “Tere are men who are unconsciously disloyal because they fail to realize the German menace,” the Defense Council asserted, and “these should be made to see the truth. Tere are others who are consciously disloyal; these should receive the treatment which treason deserves.” Less strident petitions for “100 percent
Burning German-language books in Baraboo, Wisconsin, during an anti-German demonstration, 1918, and the pile of ashes left from burnt German language high school textbooks, Baraboo High School. Text on the road reads “Here lies the remains of German in B.H.S.”
Photographer: E. B. (Ephraim Burt) Trimpey, 1878-1948, photographer Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. Used with permission.
Americanism” predated U.S. entry into World War I, but the call to arms gave proponents a heightened sense of purpose, an urgency that permeated their pro-war posturing.10 Fear of industrial sabotage raised yet more concerns about immigrant fealty. As part of its call for Iowans to support America’s combat mission, the State Council of Defense encouraged support for the American Federation of Labor, along with “all labor unions, all working men.” Specifc coupling of the AFL with the calls for workplace cooperation, “without regard for interest or occupation,” conveyed a message to more radical labor organizations that they should curtail their activism. Tose perceived as failing to comply became targets of contempt. A concerned citizen from Adel dismissed another resident’s claims of mistreatment
Service fag of Solørlaget. Made by Oliane Eggen of East Grand Forks, Minnesota, and Anna Flatten of Sisseton, South Dakota, and presented at annual stevne (gathering) of Solørlaget in Fargo, North Dakota in June 1919. The more than 500 stars represent Solørlaget members who served in World War I. The American eagle and Norwegian coat of arms were embroidered by artist Pauline Fjelde of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who was also a member of Solørlaget. Vesterheim 2014.002.001—Gift of Solørlag of America in honor of all Solørlag members past and present.
because the aggrieved belonged to the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which avowed the overthrow of capitalism. Given this afliation and his alleged pro-German utterances, any strictures that he received were “no more than is coming to him, if as much.” Reports of rampant socialism in Muscatine raised similar ire. When the Council heard that the city’s mayor had incarcerated the editor of a local socialist newspaper, one ofcial urged taking steps to reorient any of the jailed journalist’s supporters. He hoped to get Senator Kenyon to speak in the city on the importance of patriotism.11
Not all reports about Iowa’s immigrants were negative. A general contractor in Onawa lauded local German Americans, saying: “Tis county seems to be in pretty good shape at present, as the Germans seem to be taking more interest in the war from the right standpoint, that is, some of our local Germans. Te spirit seems to be improving rather than growing any worse.” Immigrant Ludwig Schubbert, the New Albion News editor, volunteered to translate any materials written in German for Iowa ofcials. After reviewing numerous newspapers, he found no nefarious
content. A majority of the papers published “a good share of the publicity” provided by government agencies. Sam T. White, a naturalized immigrant living in Davenport, publicly proclaimed his undivided loyalty to the United States. Having renounced his “Old World” connections upon arrival, he now pledged to do his duty by supporting the American war eforts. Should he fail, in some unspecifed manner, “I should consider myself nothing more than the commonest kind of a cur, and any punishment that the Government or the Citizens meted out to me would be justly deserved.” Proud of his exploits, he sent a copy of his remarks to the Defense Council.12 No doubt other foreign-born women and men behaved in similarly “proper” ways, but their conduct did not change the widespread perceptions of immigrant-impropriety the persisted throughout the war.
Not surprisingly, given that the war was against Germany, Americanizers devoted much of their attention to German Americans, but this focus did not spare other ethnic groups, including Norwegian Americans, from expectations of uncompromised loyalty. Although Norway maintained ofcial neutrality, and its merchant marine aided the British cause, Norwegian Americans throughout the Midwest felt pressure to show their patriotic zeal. Te Sons of Norway Gyda Varden Lodge, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, exemplifed their response to “imputations of disloyalty whenever and wherever made. . . .” No Norwegian American, they asserted, ever had taken up arms against the United States. Instead, they courageously had served in the U.S. military, shedding their blood in conficts from the Civil War to recent campaigns in Mexico. Te lodge, composed of U.S. citizens, unanimously pledged the “undivided loyalty and the active support of its membership to our county in the prosecution of the present war.” No American should doubt their love of the United States, of its democracy and liberty.13
Sons of Norway chapters demonstrated their commitment throughout the war. Sons at Gyda Varden in Grand Forks voted unanimously to pay dues for members serving in the armed forces, pledged to buy war bonds, and held an auction to support the Red Cross, which provided aid and support to American soldiers. In April 1918, on the anniversary of the U.S. entry into the war, the Grand Forks Sons joined massive public demonstration to “Help Win the War.” June resolutions took wording from the Declaration of Independence to pledge “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to the United States and the Wilson administration. Te Duluth, Minnesota, chapter devoted its January meeting to presentations on “Good American Citizens.” Opening remarks called for the members to show their “devotion to American ideals.” Critics, however, at least those of the stripe found in Iowa, likely would have found fault with the speaker’s inclusion of “respect” for the German Kaiser. Te Skagway, Alaska, Lodge joined the state’s “Four-Minute Fraternal Organizations” in inviting patriotic speakers to their monthly meetings. Newspaper coverage of their activities made clear the importance that the Sons placed on publicly demonstrating their patriotism.14
Ofcial Americanization eforts, primarily those sanctioned by the State Councils of Defense, ended after the belligerents agreed to the 11 November 11, 1919 Armistice. Immigrants would continue to face challenges, including expectations of assimilation, but not the intense ofcial
scrutiny of the war years. Yet, those high-pressure calls for complete and immediate assimilation comprise more than a historical footnote. Subsequent generations of Americans would come to defne the United States as a “nation of immigrants” and celebrate its cultural pluralism. Standing in sharp contrast, the often fanatic demands of adherence to an American orthodoxy during World War I should serve as a reminder that respect for diversity easily can be disregarded, seemingly for the most legitimate of reasons, and the associated freedoms summarily compromised.
Roll of Honor of Chicago Norske Klub, Chicago, Illinois. Names and ranks of the members and sons of members who served in WWI. The stars preceding names identify the fve individuals who were killed in service.
Vesterheim 1988.024.001— Gift of Sons of Norway Lodge Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson 97.
Endnotes
1 Unidentifed clipping, circa August 1917, and Des Moines Register, November 5, 1917, Metcalf Scrapbook; Council for National Defense–State Councils Section, “Americanization of Aliens,” Bulletin No. 86, February 12, 1918, in Governor William L. Harding Archival Collection–Council of Defense Papers, Iowa State History Society, Des Moines, Iowa; Ellis W. Hawley, Te Great War and the Search for Modern Order: A History of the American People and Teir Institutions, 1917-1933 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979), 20-30.
2 “Resolution,” Executive Department, Commonwealth of Iowa, undated–circs late 1917 or early 1918, Harding Archival Collection; Scott County Council of Defense, quoted in Steven Wrede, “Te Americanization of Scott County, 1914-1918,” Annals of Iowa 44 (Spring 1979): 629. Similarities in the language of the Executive Department Resolution and the Globe Gazette,February 1918 suggest that they were written at about the same time.
3 Unidentifed clipping, circa August 1917; Burlington Gazette, August 14, 1917; Des Moines Capital, August 24, 1917; Muscatine New Tribune, September 2, 1917; Des Moines Register, November 2, 1917, all in Metcalf Scrapbook; Glenn N. Merry to Herbert Metcalf, September 5, 1917 and Merry to Lafayette Young, October 1, 1917, Box 1, Herbert J. Metcalf Papers, State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
4 “Americanization of Aliens.” For an example of class-based antiwar protest, see Ralph Darlington, “Re-Evaluating Syndicalist Opposition to the First World War,” Labor History 53 (November 2012): 530-32, and regarding the work with military recruits, see Nancy Gentile Ford, Americans All: Foreign-born Soldiers in World War I (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2001), 45-87.
5 Burlington Gazette, November 9, 1917, Des Moines Register, November 24, 1917, and Te Des Moines Capital, August 24,1917, Metcalf Scrapbook.
6 [H. J. Metcalf], “Important Action by the Iowa Council of National Defense,” circa November 23, 1917, Harding Collection; T. A. Potter to Metcalf, December 18, 1917, Metcalf Papers.
7 Lafayette Young to “the Librarian,” February 25, 1918 and Herbert Metcalf to Librarians,” April 1, 1918, Metcalf Papers.
8 C. E. Reed to Metcalf, January 19, 1918, Metcalf to Reed, January 24, 1918, Metcalf to John W. Behm, January 15, 1918, Henry E. Marrow to Metcalf, January 31, 1918, and Metcalf to Marrow, February 5, 1918, Metcalf Papers.
9 William S. Kenyon, “Conscription Bill,” Speech to the Senate, April 27, 1917, copy in William S. Kenyon Papers, Iowa State Historical Society, Iowa City, Iowa.
10 Executive Department Resolution, Harding Papers.
11 Resolution, Harding Collection; S. M. Leach to Herberg Metcalf, December 21,1917 and Glenn N. Merry to Metcalf, January 10, 1918, Metcalf Papers.
12 William M. Rowells to Metcalf, December 28, 1917, Metcalf to Rowells, 31 December 1917, Ludwig Schubbert to Metcalf, 17 December 1917 and January 5, 1918, Metcalf to Schubbert, January 8, 1918, Speech by Sam T. White, attached to Metcalf to White, January 10, 1918, Metcalf Papers.
13 Grand Forks Herald, August 16, 1917.
14. Gyda Varden Lodge #21, District Minute Book, June 14, 1918, Box 4-Folder 4, Sons of Norway Papers, University of North Dakota Library, Grand Forks, North Dakota; Grand Forks Herald, November 19, 1917, March 21, 1918, and April 4, 1918; Daily Alaska Dispatch, February 19, 1918; Duluth News Tribune, January 20, 1919.
About the Author
Dr. Robert Zeidel is Professor of history and Associate Dean at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. Professor Zeidel specializes in Modern United States History, with an emphasis on immigration and ethnicity. He authored Immigrants, Progressives, and Exclusion Politics: Te Dillingham Commission and several articles on America’s reaction of immigrants. He currently is completing a new book dealing with the reaction to immigrant labor from 1865 to 1924.