Immigrant Support for the American Socialist Party, 1912 and 1920 Author(S): Gary Marks and Matthew Burbank Source: Social Science History, Vol

Social Science History Association

Immigrant Support for the American Socialist Party, 1912 and 1920 Author(s): Gary Marks and Matthew Burbank Source: Social Science History, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 175-202 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Social Science History Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171437 . Accessed: 24/11/2013 05:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Press and Social Science History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Science History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for the American Socialist Party,1912 and 1920 GARY MARKS & MATTHEW BURBANK

THE PERIOD of greatestsocialist strengthin the United States, the seconddecade of thetwentieth century, coincided with the finaldecade of a greatwave of immigration.This phenomenon has attractedthe attention both of scholarsseeking to understand thebasis of supportfor the American Socialist party and of those seekingto addressthe moregeneral question of the sourcesof immigrantradicalism (Bodnar 1985; Lipset 1977). Bothperspec- tivespose a basic empiricalquestion: What role did ethnicity play in supportfor the Socialist party, or, more specifically, which immigrantgroups supported the party and which groups opposed it?

GaryMarks is associateprofessor of politicalscience at theUniversity of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill. He is theauthor of Unions in Politics: Britain, Germany, and the UnitedStates in theNineteenth and EarlyTwentieth Centuries (1989) and, withS. M. Lipset,"Why Is ThereNo Socialismin theUnited States?" A ComparativeHistorical Perspective (forthcoming). MatthewBurbank is a doctoralcandidate in theDepartment of Political Science at theUniversity of North Carolina at ChapelHill. He is currentlydoing research on contextualeffects and Britishvoting behavior. Thisis a revisedversion of a paperdelivered at theannual meeting of the South- ernPolitical Science Association,November 1988. The authorswould like to thankthe members of theAmerican politics discussion group at theUniversity of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill fortheir comments and Eileen McDonagh, GeorgeRabinowitz, and David Sheavesfor their assistance at variousstages of theproject. Research for the project was aidedby a grantfrom the University of NorthCarolina. Social Science History 14:2 (Summer 1990). Copyright I1990 by the Social Association. CCC Science History oi45-5532/90/$I.50.

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

The attemptto answerthis question has spawneda vastscholar- shipon thepart of historians and social scientists, but a definitive answerremains elusive. Part of the reasonfor this is thatwe lack sufficientlydetailed and disaggregateddata on thepolitical orientationsand activitiesof immigrantsthemselves. The small- est unitsof electoralreturn are at theward or countylevel, and informationat thisaggregate level can neverallow us to draw conclusionsabout individual behavior with any certainty. But it also seemsto be thecase thatthe analysis of currentlyavailable data has notbeen takenas faras possible.Previous research has exploredthe relationship between ethnicity and socialismby ex- aminingparticular immigrant groups in individualstates, cities, or towns(e.g., Critchlow1986; GorensteinI96I; Leinenweber I98I; Lorence1982; Miller 1975; Wolfle and Hodge 1983). Such case studiesprovide invaluable accounts of thediversity of im- migrantpolitics, but theydo not providea reliablebasis for generalization.In thisarticle we takea stepback from the wealth of illustrativeanalysis and try to gaina broader,more systematic, overviewof immigrantsupport for socialism across a widerange ofcontexts by examining voting among eight immigrant groups- Germans,English, Finns, Irish, Italians, Norwegians, Russians, and Swedes-in thepresidential elections of 1912 and 1920, elec- tionsin whichthe American Socialist party received its highest levelsof support.' In part,our resultsconfirm generalizations that are already well establishedin thefield. Our expectationsof strongpositive relationshipsbetween concentrations of Russian and Finnishim- migrantsand socialistvoting are unambiguouslyconfirmed, as is our expectationof an equallystrong negative relationship for Irishimmigrants and socialistvoting. But we have also arrived at resultsthat are contraryto widelyheld notionsin the study of Americansocialism and immigrant political behavior. We find thatconcentrations of Swedishand Italianimmigrants are posi- tivelyassociated with socialist voting. Most notably, we findthat concentrationsof Germanimmigrants are negativelyassociated withsocialist voting in the1912 presidential election, even when we controlfor a rangeof relevant variables. As we discussbelow, thereare stronggrounds for believing that individual Germans werenot disproportionately socialist in the decade before the First WorldWar. If we are correct,the mass of evidencefor Ger-

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 177 manimmigrant socialism in citiessuch as Milwaukee,detailed in numerouscase studies,provides an inadequatebasis forgeneral- izationbecause it is basedon a context-specificrelationship. The thrustof this articleis self-consciouslyinductive. Our aim is to bringa potentiallyrich, but previously underexploited, source of data to bear on empiricalgeneralizations that have widecurrency in Americanhistoriography. However, the research presentedhere is partof a broader,more theoretical attempt to explainthe sources and limitationsof socialistsupport, and the resultsof our analysisbear directlyon thisproject (Lipset and Marksforthcoming). A numberof historiansand politicalsociologists have sought to generalizeabout immigrant support for socialism. One stream of hypothesizing,the "culturalbaggage" approach,focuses on thesocial andcultural background of immigrants.From this perspective,scholars have arguedthat immigrants from urbanized/ industrializedsocieties were mostlikely to supportradical or socialistmovements in America,because the standards of justice theybrought with them were immediately relevant to theirnew situation(Gedicks 1976; RosenblumI973). A secondapproach has concentratedon thepostmigratory social context of immigrant liferather than on culturalpredispositions. In thisvein, scholars haveargued that the experience of immigratinginto a rapidlyin- dustrializingsociety instills a senseof uprootednessthat can be profoundlyradicalizing for those without the skills or experiences to deal effectivelywith their new environment(Handlin 1973; Leggett1963; see Marks1989). The scholarlydebate between proponents of theseapproaches has been a fruitfulone and has generatedcase studiesthat have shed muchlight on the ways in whichimmigrant politics re- flectdifferent patterns of experienceand socialization.Both ap- proaches,however, share the assumption that support for socialism is theexpression of a generaldisposition towards radicalism thatcan be explainedin termsof theindividual immigrant's cul- turalbackground and social context.Neither approach places much weighton the rationalsources of radicalismconceived as a choice amongalternatives for political expression that are givenwithin a particularpolitical system. In otherwords, these approachesconceive of radicalismas a social-psychologicalphe- nomenon,as an expressionof personalexperiences or qualities

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 178 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY abstractedfrom the attraction (or repulsion)exerted by theplat- forms,policies, and leadership of competing political parties. The findingsof this article suggest that support for the Socialist partycannot be understoodas theexpression of diffuseradical impulses.While the political orientations of somegroups of im- migrantsremained more or less constantacross the elections we consider,the political orientations of manyGerman and English immigrantswere transformed in response to theFirst World War andthe Socialist party's determined opposition to American intervention.From this standpoint, the article can be understoodas thestudy of a singlecase, namely,the change in immigrantvoting acrosstwo elections.This case was selectedbecause it posed a particularlystark challenge to theoriesof immigrantradicalism thatexplain support for socialism in termsof individualpropen- sities. We concludethat it is not possibleto generalizeabout immigrantradicalism without grasping the concrete character of theparty-political choices that were available. In otherwords, it seems to make sense to conceiveof radicalismin general,and socialistvoting in particular,as a relationbetween the individual and theparty or movementconcerned as opposedto a personal propensitythat can be understoodby lookingat individualsin isolationfrom the political system.

ESTABLISHED HYPOTHESES AND EXPECTATIONS The literatureon immigrantpolitical activity has developed coher- entsets of expectationsabout the orientations of variousgroups of immigrantstowards the Socialist party, and itwill be usefulto elaboratethese before setting out theresults of ourown quantitativeanalysis. Briefly, German, Russian (Jewish), Finnish, and Norwegianimmigrants are generally viewed as stronglyprosocial- ist,while Irish, Italian, and Swedishimmigrants are believedto be stronglyantisocialist. No groupis regardedas morefirmly entrenched in socialism thanimmigrants from Germany. Germans were the core of theearly socialist movement, and theirparticipation in national and municipalSocialist party politics is detailedin severalcase studiesof easternand midwesterntowns and citieswhere the Socialistparty was particularlysuccessful (Ensslen and Ickstadt 1983; Leinenweber 1981). "Artisansand intellectualsfrom Ger-

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 179 manyhad moreinfluence than any other immigrant group in the establishmentand earlygrowth of theAmerican socialist movement"(Laslett 1970: 9; Buhle 1987). In Milwaukee,where the Socialistparty sustained a powerfulpolitical machine from the beginningof the twentieth century to theSecond World War, sup- portersof theparty "tended primarily to be workersand ethnic Germans"(Miller 1986), while in New York,before the rise of Yiddishsocialism, "Germans virtually embodied socialism" (Perrier1983). The prominentrole of Germansis supportedby a quantitativestudy of thesources of radical and socialist voting in Illinoisthat finds a strongpositive relationship for every election between19oo and 1924 betweenthe proportion of whiteimmi- grants,of whomGermans were the largest minority, and voting forthe Socialist party (Wolfle and Hodge 1983). The leadershipof Germansin the Americansocialist move- menthas been linkedto thepolitical sources of emigrationfrom Germany,particularly in the wake of the 1848 revolutionand staterepression of thesocialist movement in thelate 187os and earlyI88os. The Germansocialist movement was thelargest in theworld before the First World War, and manyimmigrants to Americabrought their socialist sympathies with them (Bodnar 1985: 86). More generally,German immigrant support for the Socialistparty has been linkedto thefamiliarity that many Ger- mans alreadyhad withthe changesassociated with industrialization:"It was primarilythose immigrants with industrial back- groundswho added to the radical cohorts in this country. Germans wereconspicuous in thisregard" (Rosenblum 1973: 152). Whilethey have not directly challenged this line of analysis,a numberof writershave pointed out thatthe American Socialist partywas composedof a fargreater proportion of native-born Americansthan any previous socialist movement, and that for the firsttime German immigrants did notdominate the leadership of thesocialist movement. Some writers have also notedthat the influenceof thefirst wave of Germanradical immigrants appeared to be on thewane in somecities, such as Chicago,after the turn of thetwentieth century (Ensslen and Ickstadt 1983; Keil 1986). Immigrantsfrom Russia during this period, of whomapproxi- mately52% wereJews, have been regarded, along with the Ger- mans, as the immigrantcore of the Socialistparty.2 "In terms of proportion,the Jewishballoting on behalfof socialismwas

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ISO SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY perhapsexceeded only by that of theGerman-Americans and the Finnish-Americans"(Liebman 1979: 48). The greatsuccesses of theSocialist party in NewYork City in theI9Ios, whichincluded the election of Meyer London to Congress in 1915, 1917, and 1921,were rooted in thefirst generation of Jewish immigrants on the East Side (Gorenstein1961; Leinenweber1981). Like German immigrants,many Jews were "ready made socialists" by the time theycame to America(Liebman 1979). Moreover,as Rosenblum (1973: 150) hypothesizes,the propensity of Jewishimmigrants forradical politics was increasedbecause they "possessed social characteristicsquite in tune with an industrializingAmerica." Finnishimmigration never reached the mass proportionsof Germanor Jewishimmigration, with the result that its impact on Americansociety and socialismwas smaller.Nevertheless, in proportionalterms Finns are regardedas one of the most socialist-leaningimmigrant groups (Gedicks 1976; Kivisto1984; Kostiainen1983). The themeof previousexposure to socialism is frequentin case studiesof FinnishAmericans. One contempo- raryFinnish-American socialist attested that "Socialism with us is a kindof immigrantbaggage. All theprominent workers in the Socialistvineyard are Old CountrySocialists" (quoted in Koleh- mainen1952). However,the hypothesisof priorexperience of industrializationand cultural affinity with America does notseem to apply.Case studiesof Finnishimmigrants have emphasized insteadthe processof ruralproletarianization and traditionsof resistanceto Russianimperialism (Gedicks 1976; Kivisto 1984). Norwegianimmigrants also had a reputationfor radicalism. Like theFinns, "many Norwegian immigrants had leftistsympa- thiesand weresocialists when they [arrived]; in Norway,socialism was a ruralphenomenon" (quoted in Wefald 1971: 29). Few Norwegianshad previouslylived in cities,but their rural culture emphasizeda communitarianway of life,resistance to central authority,and strongegalitarian values. Swedes,in contrast,are reputedto havebeen predominantly conservative,despite having one of themost celebrated martyrs of the Left,Joe Hill (formerlyJoel Higglund), in theirranks (Carlsson1976). The factorsthat are hypothesized as influencing Finnishradicalism are adaptedto explainSwedish conservatism. UnlikeFinnish immigrants, "the majority of Swedishimmigrants arrivedin Americabefore socialism had obtaineda footholdin

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 181

Sweden"(Gedicks 1976). Andwhile Finns tended to comefrom landless labor backgrounds,"the small farmer. .. predominated in thelater Swedish emigration stream" (ibid.). In contrastto thenineteenth century, by the early years of the twentiethcentury the Englishmade up a relativelysmall proportionof new immigrants.English immigrants were subject to crosscuttinginfluences in theirattitudes toward socialism. They were well acculturatedwith industrialization and broughtwith themstrong trade union and working-classpolitical traditions (Aronowitz 1973: 144). These traditionswere especially strong amongworkers in skilledoccupations such as ironworkingand glassblowing,and in coal mining(Green 1975: 27; Laslett 1986; Oestreicher1988). However,many English immigrants were also likelyto be skilledworkers in industriesthat were relatively shelteredfrom labor-saving innovation, such as maintenanceme- chanics.They were also founddisproportionally in managerial positionsranging from foremen of laborgangs to techniciansin themining industry. Irish immigrantshave generallybeen viewedas havingthe weakestsocialist propensities of any group from Western Europe. Whileinstances of Irish radicalism documented for the 1870s and I88os challengethe view that the Irish were always conservative (Brundage1986; Wilentz I979), thereis littleevidence of broad- based Irishsupport for the American Socialist party. A studyof socialismin New Yorkreports that the Irish, "who werewell- representedin certainareas of thetrade union movement, were entirelyabsent from the Socialist movement except for episodic appearances"(Leinenweber I98I). A numberof writershave explainedthis in termsof thecentral role of theIrish in Demo- craticcity machines and the determined opposition of the Catholic churchto radicalpolitical movements (Dubofsky 1968; Handlin 1973; Karson1958). In New York,as in Chicago,Boston, and Philadelphia,the Irishrose in citygovernment and were inte- gratedin policeand fire departments, school systems, and clerical trades (Aronowitz 1973: 159-60). The oppositionbetween the Catholicchurch and the Socialist party was suchthat "no Catholic workerin early-twentieth-centuryAmerica could be unawarethat his Churchwas an adversary,not an ally,of socialism"(Karson 1974: 198; Donnelly 1982). Like theIrish, Italian immigrants are viewedas a groupthat

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 182 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY providedlittle support for the Socialist party. In thefirst place, Italianswere overwhelmingly Catholic. Second, a largepropor- tionof themcame fromrural backgrounds where subordination was a customaryaspect of their working lives, with the supposed consequencethat once theycame to America,"the demands of employersfor absolute discipline and hardwork were not diffi- cultfor them to accept"(Aronowitz 1973: 165). Finally,a large proportionof Italian immigrants were "birds of passage," remain- ing in theNew Worldonly until they built sufficient savings to returnwith honor to theirnative country. Hence it is hypothesized thatItalians tended to be economisticin theirorientation to work,rarely developing a commitmentto radical political change (BartonI975).

DATA AND RESEARCH STRATEGY In orderto testthese basic expectationsabout the orientation of immigrantsto theSocialist party, we havefocused our attention on six states:Illinois, Minnesota, New York,Ohio, Pennsylva- nia, andWisconsin (see AppendixA). Thesestates were selected becausethey have large immigrant populations and exhibittheo- reticallyrelevant variation at thestate and countylevel with re- gardto theproportion of rural/urbanpopulation, the presence of industrialmanufacturing, and the distribution ofnative/immigrant population.We have not attemptedto selecta randomsample of statesor counties,which in thiscontext would be a dubious undertaking.Our choiceof thesesix statesallows us to examine some interestingpatterns of variationin a subsetthat includes a significantproportion of the totalnumber of individualsin the groupswith which we areconcerned. In 910othese states encom- passed 59% of theforeign-born Germans in theUnited States, 44% of theEnglish, 39% of theFinns, 51% of theIrish, 60% of theItalians, 55% of theNorwegians, 65% of theRussians, and 52% of theSwedes. In addition,these states are of considerable substantiveimportance in overallsupport for the Socialist party: theyprovided 42% of thetotal socialist vote in 1912 and 59% of thetotal socialist vote in 1920. Usingcounties in thesesix statesas theunits of analysisallows us to matchcensus data for 19io and 1920 withelection returns forthe 1912 and 1920 presidentialelections.3 These data, in ratio

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 183 form,are then analyzed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regres- sionto explorethe relationship between concentrations of specific ethnicgroups and votingfor the Socialistparty.4 The equation includesvariables for each of theethnic groups as well as the percentageof wage earnersin manufacturingand thepercentage of urbanpopulation. The regressioncoefficients presented here should be interpreted in termsof theimpact of thepercentage of a givenethnic group on the percentageof socialistvoting across the countiesunder study,rather than as a measureof how individuals voted. To trans- lateaggregate results such as thosepresented here into statements aboutindividual behavior requires information about contextual effectsthat is unavailablefrom the historical record (Firebaugh 1978; Shively1969). However,it is possibleto controlfor some importantcontending influences on socialistvoting at thecounty level,and thisarticle utilizes census data in an attemptto do so systematically.

FINDINGS Our researchstrategy allows us to explorethe effects of varying concentrationsof immigrantgroups across counties and between elections.Table I reportscoefficients for all sixstates together and foreach stateindividually.5 The patternsthat emerge both confirm and disconfirmentrenched notions concerning immigrant political orientation.We beginby examiningthose immigrant groups forwhich prior expectations are confirmedand thenturn to the groupsfor which our findings are likely to be morecontroversial.

ExpectationsConfirmed: Socialist and NonsocialistImmigrants The propensitiesof two groupsin particularare stronglycon- firmedin theregression analysis: those of RussianJews and the Irish.We finda positiveand statisticallysignificant relationship betweenthe proportion of Russianimmigrants at the county level and the percentagevoting socialist for both the 1912 and 1920 presidentialelections. Even thoughRussians tended to be con- centratedin urbanand working-classcounties, where we would expectsocialist voting to be highest,the overall coefficient for

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Table I OLS regression results, 1912 and 1920 Wage Intercept earners Urban German English Russian Nordic Irish Italian R2 I912

Overall 0.022 0.265 0.050 -0.123 0.643 0.491 0.399 -2.343 o.163 (5-976) (5.969) (4.442) (2.347) (1-780) (2.868) (13.86) (9-375) (1.122) .45

Illinois o.o18 0.o65 0.044 -0.029 0.998 1.531 -0.036 -1.902 -o.137 (4.669) (0.735) (2.774) (0.311) (2.108) (4.622) (0.387) (3-334) (0.908) .50 Minnesota o.o65 0.825 -0.022 -0.563 4.273 -o.Io8 0.244 -4.215 -0.647 (1.730) (3-523) (0.048) (1.813) (1-351) (o.135) (1.890) (2.542) (0.565) .51

New York o.oo6 0.127 0.043 -o.oo9 0.337 0.375 0.145 -0o.975 o.o65 (0.747) (1.475) (1.887) (0.049) (0.753) (1.824) (0.572) (3.119) (0.294) .48 Ohio 0.022 0.355 o.o81 -o.195 1.504 0.055 0.397 -3-493 0.500 (3-71o) (2.734) (2.633) (1.o93) (1.881) (0.075) (0.694) (2.673) (0.920) .63

Pennsylvania 0.012 0.259 0o.o013 0.617 1.oo6 0.797 0.493 -2.863 0.643 (i.io8) (2.587) (0.368) (I.345) (0.797) (1.939) (1.380) (3.985) (1.867) .42 Wisconsin o.oo6 0.104 0.042 0.130 -0.277 1.015 0.321 - 1.648 -0.231 (0.286) (0.630) (1.435) (0.835) (0.252) (1.524) (2.960) (i.o80) (0.559) .43

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1920

Overall -0.004 0.163 0.013 0.502 -0.203 1.076 0.494 -1.234 0.272 (1.342) (4.811) (1.533) (7-433) (0.564) (6.333) (17-38) (4.258) (2.222) .53

Illinois 0.005 0.040 0.007 0.148 0.479 1.579 0.075 -1.287 0.219 (2.823) (i.o6o) (0.987) (2.242) (1.871) (5-496) (1.358) (2.885) (3.662) .62

Minnesota 0.024 0.277 0.036 -0o.383 -0.289 0.542 0.477 -2.439 0.256 .62 (1.021) (1.815) (1.408) (1.132) (o.o85) (o.517) (4-794) (1.174) (o.172) New York -0o.oo003 0.127 -0o.oo005 0.287 0.821 0.874 0.259 -0o.794 0.498 (0.419) (1.628) (0.283) (1.026) (1.803) (5.616) (0.962) (2.314) (1-951) .69 Ohio 0.003 0.o91 0.017 0.014 0.346 0.573 0.113 -I.662 0.312

(I.376) (2.319) (1-79I) (I.618) (1.026) (1.263) (o.666) (1.921) (I.79I) .63 Pennsylvania -o.ooI 0.084 0.022 0.659 0.173 0.589 0.046 -1.497 0.375 (0o.I172) (I.957) (1.492) (2.012) (0.198) (I.O89) (o.I87) (2.592) (I.928) .40 Wisconsin -0.003 0.408 -0.003 0.931 -2.583 0.699 0.354 -3.308 0.178 (0.123) (1.929) (0.079) (2.809) (0.973) (o.516) (1.926) (0.789) (0.278) .43 Note:Entries are multiple regression coefficients (with t ratiosin parentheses).

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I86 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Russiansis positivedespite control variables tapping these influences.Within individual states, the relationship is strongand positivein New York,Illinois, and Pennsylvania (1912), the three stateswith the greatestconcentrations of Russian-bornimmi- grants.This resultis particularlyimpressive because New York, whichhas been thefocus of intensivecase study,does notexert undueinfluence on theseresults.6 Beyondthis basic finding,a questionarises concerning the absenceof a significantpositive coefficient for counties in Min- nesota,Ohio, and Wisconsin.Does thisindicate that Russian immigrantsin thesestates were unlike those in theother states we analyze?When we attemptto answerthis question, we haveto be extremelysensitive to thepossibilities generated by the ecological characterof ourdata. The proportionsof Russianimmigrants in thepopulations of Ohio,Minnesota, and Wisconsin are farlower thanin Illinois,New York,and Pennsylvania(see AppendixA), and as a resultthe coefficientsfor these states are moreeasily swayedby theintroduction of variablesthat tap relatedsources of socialistvoting. Consistent with the case studyevidence that relatessupport for the Socialist party with Russian Jews, the percentageof Jewsamong Russian immigrants is markedly higher in New York,Illinois, and Pennsylvania than in theother states.7 The resultsfor Irish immigrants strongly confirm the estab- lishedview that the Socialist party had very little success with this group.The coefficient for the percentage of Irish-born immigrants for1912 is consistentlynegative and highly significant overall and forevery state except Wisconsin. For 1920the proportion of Irish is againnegative, although no longersignificant in thestates with thelowest proportion of Irish:Ohio, Minnesota,and Wisconsin. Giventhe disproportionate location of Irishimmigrants in urban areasand among large concentrations ofworkers, that is, in those areas wherethe Socialistparty had the mostsuccess in these states,the negative coefficient is clearevidence of theweakness of socialistsupport among this group. Althoughthe resultsfor English immigrants are not as un- ambiguousas forRussian and Irish,they are broadlyconsistent withthe expectation that English immigrants were not particularly strongsupporters of the Socialistparty. Interpreting the results demonstratesthe difficulty of analyzinga smallimmigrant group (see Appendix A). In 1912 thereis an overallpositive coefficient,

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 187 butonly in Illinoisis thisrelationship statistically significant. This findingis probablyexplained by the concentration ofEnglish coal minerswith longstanding socialist sympathies inDistrict 12 ofthe UnitedMine Workers Union (Laslett 1986). Whileit is possibleto speakof Irish and Russian-Jewish immigrantsin termsof deep-seatedindividual propensities either for or againstradicalism, this approach is lessconvincing for the En- glish.The Socialistparty's opposition to Americanintervention on theside of the Allies in the First World War alienated many En- glishimmigrants who otherwisemight have supported the party. Whilethe proportion of English immigrants is still associated with highlevels of socialistvoting in somestates in 1920,the overall associationis no longerpositive, a resultthat is congruentwith the much-publicizedalienation of a numberof former English leaders of theSocialist party, including Upton Sinclair and John Spargo. In analyzingFinnish, Norwegian, and Swedish immigrants, we focuson Minnesota,the only state in whicheach grouprepresents a significantproportion of the population (see AppendixA). Min- nesotawas characterizedby both a highproportion of Nordic immigrantsand high levels of socialistvoting. Three heavily Nordic countiesin Minnesotaprovided the Socialist party with exception- ally strongsupport in 1912: Lake, with36.8% socialistvoting; Beltrami,with 28.7%; andKoochiching, with 24.3%. OnlyMil- waukee,with 26.9% socialistvoting, is comparableamong the countieswe analyze.The coefficientsin thefully specified equa- tionfor the percentage of Finnsat thecounty level in Minnesota are positiveand significantfor both 1912 (b = 0.802, t ratio= 2.478) and 1920(b = 0.636, t ratio= 2.519),matching our theo- reticalexpectations, while those for the Norwegians are positive but not significant.More surprisingly,there are strongpositive coefficientsfor the percentage of Swedesin Minnesotain both 1912 (b = 0.220, t ratio= 1.664) and 1920(b = 0.503, t ratio = 4.716). It is worthnoting that this phenomenon is not con- finedto Minnesota:when we analyzeSwedes separately in Illinois and Wisconsin,states where they are also presentin considerable numbers,we findconsistently positive coefficients that are statisticallysignificant for Wisconsin in 1912(b = 0.413, t ratio= 2.493) and Illinoisin 1920 (b = 0.156, t ratio= 2.618). These resultscannot be explainedas an artifactof similarpatterns of geographicallocation on thepart of Swedesand moresocialist

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I88 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Finnsand Norwegians, because the equations control for the pres- enceof these groups. When we combinethe proportions of Finns, Norwegians,and Swedesinto one category,we finda verystrong andsignificant positive association with socialist voting across the six statesfor both 1912 and 1920 (Table I).

ExpectationsDisconfirmed: TheItalians and theGermans Ourfindings for Italians and Germans at the county level and their supportfor the Socialist party differ decisively from expectations derivedfrom the case studyliterature. The findings for Italian im- migrantsare surprising on two counts. First, the sign of the overall associationbetween concentrations ofItalians and socialist voting is positive forboth the 1912 and 192o electionsand is highlysig- nificantfor 1920. Giventhe strength of Catholicism among Italian immigrantsand thefact that a largeminority viewed their stay in Americaas a briefone, theseresults are counterintuitive. Ital- ians tendedto live in citiesand countieswhere the proportion of industrialworkers was relativelyhigh, but the positive association is robusteven when we controlfor these variables. Second, the associationbetween the proportion of Italiansat thecounty level and socialistvoting becomes stronger after the First World War despitesocialist opposition to theItalian war effort. The resultfor 1920 is mostsignificant in stateswhere Italians made up a siz- able proportionof theimmigrant population: Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania,and Ohio. An importantreason for this unexpected finding can be found outsideAmerican conditions altogether, in theeffects of fierce oppositionto the war within a largeand influential segment of the ItalianSocialist party. When a delegationof prowarItalian labor leaderswho had been expelledfrom their organizations in Italy visitedthe United States, they were denounced by several groups ofItalian immigrants (Montgomery 1986: 337). It also appearslikely that the American Socialist party benefited fromthe unpopularity of WoodrowWilson among Italians. For someItalians, the Socialist party may have been less objectionable thanthe Democraticparty, which was associatedwith a leader who was believedto harbora deep-seatedanti-Italian prejudice. Not onlyhad Wilsonexpressed thinly disguised anti-Italian senti- ments in his Historyof the AmericanPeople, but he opposed

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism I89

Italianwar claims at theParis peace conference.Although Wilson was noton theballot in 1920,this issue dominated the American- Italianpress and greatlyreduced Italian support for the Demo- craticpresidential nominee, James M. Cox (Nelli 1970: 118-19). A proportionof anti-Republican Italian voters may thus have been inducedto votefor Eugene Debs as thelesser of twoevils. If so, theassociation between Italian immigrants and the Socialist party is to be explainednot simply in termsof theleanings of Italians towardsradicalism or socialism,but as a resultof the alternatives open to themin thepresidential elections of 1912 and 1920. Equallysurprising are ourresults for German immigrants. In 1912,the overall relationship between the proportion of Germans andsupport for the Socialist party is negativeeven in the presence of controls.This findingruns counter to theexpectation of Ger- man socialistaffinity, as discussedabove. How can we account forboth this overall negative association and theextensive case studyevidence detailing German support for socialism in various cities,such as Milwaukee?8 A plausibleexplanation for this result is thatthe negative co- efficientfor 1912 reflectsa basic religiouscleavage within the Germanimmigrant population between Protestants, who tended to votesocialist, and Catholics, who did not. Given the trenchant oppositionof theCatholic church to theSocialist party and the patternof socialistvoting among other groups of immigrants,we attemptedto controlfor the effects of religionby includingdata on thepercentage of Protestants,Catholics, and Jews taken from the1916 census of religion. However, controlling for the effects of thesevariables has littleinfluence on thecoefficient for Germans.9 In contrast,a breakdownof countiesaccording to degreeof industrializationand urbanizationdoes providesome insight into theseapparently contradictory results (Table 2). In urbancounties and countieswith a significantpercentage of wage earners, thecoefficient for the proportion of Germansis positive,though not significantfor 1912. In the remainingcounties there is a clearand statisticallysignificant negative relationship between the proportionof Germanimmigrants and socialistvoting. Thus the overallnegative relationship between the proportion of foreign- bornGermans and socialistvoting in 1912 is a productof rural and nonindustrialareas ratherthan the urbanor industrialized areasthat have been the focus of previous analysis. The negativeassociation for German immigrants in 1912 is

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 190 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Table 2 Regressioncoefficients for German-born immigrants subset bypercentage of wage earners and urban population High-wage- Low-wage- earnercounties earnercounties Urbancounties Ruralcounties (N = 50) (N = 425) (N = 87) (N = 388) 19I2 0.466 -o.144 0.034 -o.147 (1.236) (2.785) (0.200) (2.703) 1920 1.776 0.444 0.868 0.451 (3.912) (6.585) (3-942) (6.660) Note: Entriesare multipleregression coefficients (with t ratiosin parentheses) froman equationwhich includes control variables for percentage wage earners in manufacturing(in urban/ruralanalysis), percentage urban (in high/low-wage- earneranalysis), percentage of foreign-born English, Russian, Nordic, Irish, and Italian.High-wage-earner counties are defined as countieswith I5% or moreof wage earnersin manufacturingand low-wage-earnercounties as less than15% as countieswith wageearners in manufacturing.Urban counties are defined 50o% or moreof thepopulation in townsof morethan 2,5oo and ruralcounties as countieswith less than50% ofthe population in townsof 2,500. sharplyreversed in 1920. The overallcoefficient for 1920 is both positiveand statisticallysignificant. Concentrations of Germans in ruraland nonindustrialcounties (Table 2) becomepositively and significantlyrelated to socialistvoting. This extraordinary shiftfrom 1912 to 1920 testifiesto thedecisive impact of the First WorldWar on thebases of socialistsupport and to therole of party-politicalalternatives in channelingparticipation. Socialist oppositionto Americanintervention in thewar mobilizedsup- portin areas of Germanimmigration far more effectively than anyprevious appeal. While the absence of German-based support forthe Socialistparty in 1912is surprisingin lightof previous case studies,the positive intensity of the connection after the war confirmsanalyses of rapid socialist growth in Wisconsinand else- where(e.g., Lorence1982). Afterthe First World War and the Bolshevikrevolution, the Socialist party shed the bulk of its native supportin theWest and in thefarming states and became a party of immigrantsbased in a fewmidwestern and easternstates. A county-by-countycomparison of the data between1912 and 1920 revealsthe complementary processes that underlie the shift in sign and magnitudeof theGerman coefficient; not only did thelevel of socialistvoting rise in manypredominantly German areas, but thelevel of socialistvoting in non-Germancounties declined.

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 191

While it is clear thatour resultsdo not directlycontradict case studiesthat have found strong socialist support among some groupsof Germanimmigrants, they do call into questionthe notionthat German immigrants as a wholewere disproportionally likelyto votefor the Socialist party in 1912.This notion appears to be based on outlyingcases andfragmentary information. Ger- manimmigrants undoubtedly took a leadingpart in earlysocialist movements;their influence was such thatmany socialist meet- ings wereactually conducted in German.Some of thestrongest centersof socialism,particularly in Wisconsin,were rooted in Germanimmigrant populations. Nonetheless, in the yearsim- mediatelyprior to the FirstWorld War we cannotspeak of an affinitybetween Germans and socialist voting. Beforewe leavethis question, it is worthexamining the possi- bilitythat we havemerely traced an epiphenomenon,particularly given the ecologicalcharacter of the data. In the absence of individual-leveldata, we can neveranswer this question conclu- sively,but it is possibleto bringadditional sources of evidence to bearon ourstatistical findings. The changingpattern of immigration from Germany during the secondhalf of thenineteenth century sheds light on ourfindings. In the firstplace, theindividual motives underlying emigration fromGermany to theUnited States appear to havechanged deci- sivelyover time. The greatwave of emigrationduring the 1850s consistedof largenumbers of liberals and socialists who left Ger- manyin responseto thefailure of the 1848 revolutionand the heavy-handedrepression that followed. These emigrants provided thenucleus of theearly socialist movement in America.Emigra- tionin the followingdecades, and particularlyduring the next greatwave of emigration in theI88Os, appears to have been moti- vatedby the search for better economic conditions: in theseyears thenumber of emigrantscorresponds quite closely to changesin Germaneconomic performance (Kllman andMarschalck 1973). It also seemslikely that the potential for radicalism among Ger- man Americansdeclined as theproportion of immigrantsfrom theagrarian regions of East Elbia increasedin thesecond half of thenineteenth century. These farmers and farm laborers left their nativePrussia in responseto a deepeningagricultural crisis that began in thelate 1870s and underminedtheir traditional way of life(Bade 1983). Theirgoal was to secureagrarian independence in the New World, thoughfew of themdid. Given theircultural

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 192 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY rootsin a societydominated by Junkersand theirtraditionalist expectationsin comingto theUnited States, it wouldbe surpris- ingif they were predisposed towards the Socialist party. Only the eventsof the First World War and the options available in the 1920 presidentialelection could inducethem to supportthe Socialist party. An intensiveresearch project on the Germanworking-class communityin Chicago suggeststhat the radical influenceof the firstwave of Germanimmigrants was in decline by the early 19oos (Keil and Jentz1983). As Germanimmigrants self- consciouslyunderwent the process of Americanizationand the generationof committed socialists aged, the distinct German sub- cultureof newspapers,festivities, theater, picnics, and clubsof all kindsthat underpinned socialist organization declined. The old German-languagesocialist Arbeiter-Zeitung, which explicitly re- jected Americanculture and values,was increasinglyviewed as old-fashionedand out of touch with American conditions (Ensslen and Ickstadt1983). By the early 19oos, the most recentwave of immigrants,along with the children of earlierimmigrants, were intenton participatingwithin existing American organizations, includingAFL unionsthat were generallysuspicious of radical politicalactivity. While the socialist subculture of German immi- grantscould sustainand regenerateitself in a fewcities densely populatedwith Germans, in most areas it eroded. German support forthe Socialist party in 1920 was conditionedabove all by the party'srefusal to supportAmerican intervention against Germany ratherthan by German commitment tothe party's social-economic program.

CONCLUSION In our researchwe havetested commonly held beliefs about the socialistorientations of eightimmigrant groups. In severalin- stancesour findingsconfirm prior expectations, providing in the processa quantitativebasis forgeneralizations that previously have been groundedexclusively in case studies.But we have also foundevidence that goes againstsome deep-seated notions concerningimmigrant political orientation. As expected,the percentage of Russian and Finnish immigrants at thecounty level is positivelyand significantlyassociated with

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 193 the socialist vote in the presidentialelections of 1912 and 1920. Also as expected,the percentage of Irish immigrants is negatively relatedto theproportion of socialistvoting. However, our find- ingswith respect to Swedishand particularly Italian and German immigrantgroups conflict with expectations formulated in thelit- erature.For 1912we finda positiveassociation for concentrations of Swedishand Italianimmigrants and supportfor the American Socialistparty, and a negativeassociation for German immigrants. Onlyfor 1920, afterthe profound experience of theFirst World War,do we finda positiveassociation between concentrations of Germanimmigrants and support for socialism. We havepointed to argumentsthat suggest that these aggregate resultshold up forindividuals, but it is well to stateexplicitly thatthe results of our quantitative analysis do notclinch the argu- ment.We do notrule out the possibility that additional variables not tappedin our analysisare presentwhere these groups are concentrated,and that these might outweigh the statistical effects we measure.We havebeen able to controlfor several theoreti- callyrelevant variables, but we havenot controlled for all possible variables.For example,it could be thatin countieswhere Ger- manswere concentrated, other factors that we do notcontrol for wereunpropitious for the Socialist party or vice versa,and that thesefactors, rather than the presence of Germans,account for theassociations we measure. We stressthese limitations of ourfindings because the kind of quantitativeanalysis presented here cannot by itself confirm or dis- confirmempirical generalizations; itmust be refinedand extended throughcase studyanalysis. Structured, focused case studiesmay be particularlyvaluable in evaluatingcontextual effects where we have few sourcesof comparativedata (Georgeand McKeown 1985). We have arguedthat the selection of cases foranalyzing therelationship between immigrant groups and support for socialism has all too oftenbeen determinedby the relative success of the Socialistparty in a particularcity or region,rather than by thecriteria of hypothesistesting. For thisreason, our visionof immigrantpolitical activity has beenskewed. Finally,this article provides a consistentpattern of evidence supportingthe contention that radical political activity is shaped by partycontext. Between the presidential elections of 1912and 1920, the AmericanSocialist party had to reactto theinvolve-

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 194 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY ment of the United States in the First World War. The party's decisionto opposeAmerican intervention alienated some groups and attractedothers. Comparison across these two elections indicates thatit is notpossible to speakof thesocialist propensities of individualsin the abstractwithout referring to theprograms and strategiesof thepolitical parties they supported. Some immigrantgroups, such as theIrish, never voted for the Socialist party,no matterwhat strategy it pursued,while others, such as RussianJews, consistently gave it disproportionatesupport. But thereare also immigrantgroups, such as theGermans, whose levelof supportresponded to specificpolitical appeals. The exis- tenceof significantshifts over a span of just eightyears attests to the factthat the causal pathfrom individual propensities to politicalbehavior traverses powerful intervening variables related to the politicalopportunities available under specific historical circumstances.

APPENDIX A Ethnicprofiles of states,I9Io and 1920 1910 IL MN NY OH PA WI Totalpopulation (thousands) 5,638 2,075 9,113 4,767 7,665 2,333

Percentages Urban 61.7 41.0 78.8 55.9 60.4 43.0

Rural 38.3 59.0 21.2 44.I 39.6 57.0 Foreign-bornwhites 21.3 26.2 29.9 12.5 18.8 22.0 English 5.0 2.2 5.4 7.3 7.6 2.7 German 26.5 20.2 I6.0 29.3 13.6 45.5 Irish 7.8 2.9 13.5 6.7 11.5 2.7 Italian 6.o 1.8 17.3 7.o0 13.6 1.8 Russian 12.4 3.2 20.5 8.2 16.7 5.8 Finnish 0.2 4.9 0.3 0.7 0.2 I.I Norwegian 2.7 19.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 I I. I Swedish 9.6 22.5 2.0 0.9 1.6 5.0

Socialistvote (1912) 7.1 8.2 4.o0 8.7 6.9 8.4

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 195

APPENDIX A continued

1920 IL MN NY OH PA WI Totalpopulation (thousands) 6,485 2,387 10,385 5,759 8,720 2,632

Percentages Urban 67.9 44.1 82.7 63.8 64.3 47.3 Rural 32.I 55.9 17.3 36.2 35.7 52.7 Foreign-bornwhites 18.6 20.4 26.8 11.8 I5.9 17.5 English 4.5 2.3 4.9 6.4 6.5 2.4 German 17.0 15.4 io.6 16.5 8.7 32.9 Irish 6.2 2.I I0.2 4.3 8.8 1.7 Italian 7.8 I.5 19.6 8.9 16.I 2.4

Russian 9.8 3.3 19.o 6.4 1.6I 4.7 Finnish 0.3 6.o 0.4 0.9 0.2 1.5 Norwegian 2.3 I8.6 I.0 0.2 0.2 9.9 Swedish 8.7 23.I 1.9 1.1 1.4 5.0 2.8 Socialistvote (1920) 3.6 7.6 7.0 3.8 II.5 Sources:U.S. Bureauof the Census I9Io, 1920;Congressional Quarterly 1985. Note: Ethnicgroups are a percentageof foreign-bornwhites (other percentages arebased upon total population).

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions APPENDIX B WLS regression results, I9I2 and 1920 Wage Intercept earners Urban German English Russian Nordic Irish Italian

I912

Overall 0.022 0.252 0.042 -0.087 0.485 0.497 0.372 -1.805 0.129 (7-59I) (6.156) (4-365) (2.138) (1.629) (3.295) (II1.87) (10.94) (0.999) Illinois o.oi8 0.051 0.036 -0o.o031 1.196 1.638 -0.047 -1.66I -0.209 (5.636) (0.596) (2.601) (0.420) (2.715) (4.185) (0.522) (3.579) (1.445) Minnesota 0.059 o.8Io -0.003 -o.414 2.019 -0.055 0.243 -3-130 -0.241 (1.748) (3.223) (0.090) (1.624) (o.681) (0.080) (2.037) (2.618) (0.217) New York 0.005 0.114 0.025 0.067 o.186 0.258 0.232 -0.488 0.037 (1.004) (1-583) (1-.465) (0.394) (o.514) (1.482) (0.912) (2.421) (0.431) Ohio 0.023 0.347 0.075 -0.215 1.799 0.269 0.259 -3.246 0.388 (4.274) (2.675) (2.596) (I.33I) (2.223) (0.340) (0.422) (2.636) (0.667) Pennsylvania 0.012 0.234 0.021 0.555 0.708 0.704 0.566 -2.588 0.675 (1.287) (2.358) (0.643) (I.239) (0.552) (I.647) (1-.496) (3-950) (1.922) Wisconsin 0.015 o.80 0.o019 0.025 -0.207 0.923 0.269 -I.126 -o.196 (o.991) (1.172) (0.732) (0.204) (0.290) (I.444) (2.829) (1-145) (o.518)

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1920 Overall o.oo o.0.135 0.002 0.415 -0.039 0.865 0.439 -0.637 0.368 (0.467) (4.65) (0o.314) (7.165) (o. I64) (4.511) (13.77) (3.243) (3.624) Illinois 0.005 0.042 0.003 0.112 0.450 1.575 0.036 -0.747 0.235 (3.702) (I.I66) (0.566) (1.973) (I.-757) (4-481) (0.664) (2.007) (3-368) Minnesota 0.039 0.324 0.022 -0.469 - 1.929 0.592 0.392 -2.358 0.599 (1.892) (2.026) (0.896) (1.651) (0.643) (o.677) (4.126) (1.447) (0.383) New York -0.003 o. io6 0.002 0.266 0.714 0.761 0.247 -0.625 0.470 (0.525) (I.435) (0.121) (0.972) (1.612) (4.113) (0.838) (2.157) (2.030) Ohio 0.004 0.Io9 0.008 0.095 0.509 0.805 0.062 - 1.55I 0.239 (2.611) (2.939) (I.026) (I.I29) (I.6oo00) (1.650) (o.34I) (2.063) (1.297) Pennsylvania o0.oo001 o.o66 0.022 0.544 -o.o18 0.273 0.079 -o.959 0.445 (0.315) (1.664) (1.665) (1.860) (0.023) (0.569) (0.366) (2.330) (2.469) Wisconsin 0.005 0.390 -0.002 0.783 -2.855 0.797 0.284 -2.931 0.404 (0.312) (1.932) (0.051) (3.002) (1.242) (0.549) (1.976) (0.933) (0.750) Note:Entries are multiple regression coefficients (with t ratiosin parentheses).

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 198 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

NOTES

I Our selectionof immigrantgroups is influencedby theavailability of data as well as by substantiveconcerns. Because of changingborders, data on Austrianand EasternEuropean immigrants are notcomparable across the 19Io and 1920censuses. 2 is of This estimate based uponthe U.S. Bureau theCensus's (I9Io: 193) classificationof immigrantpopulations by mothertongue. Of theover 1.6 millionimmigrants classified as "Russian"in I9Io, 52.3% reportedYiddish or Hebrewas theirmother tongue, while only 2.5% reportedRussian as their nativelanguage (in addition,26.1% reportedPolish, 8.6% Lithuanianor Lettish,and 7.6% German). 3 The censusdata are from"Historical, Demographic, Economic, and Social Data: The UnitedStates, 1790-1970" (ICPSR 0003), and theelection data are from"United States Historical Election Returns, 1788-1984" (ICPSR oooI). We constructedtwo datasets, one combiningI9Io censusvariables with 1912 electionreturns and one matching1920 censusvariables with 1920 returns.For I9Io, thetotal number of countiesin thesix statesunder analysisis 475; for1920, thereis one additionalcase becauseNew York Countybecame two counties, New Yorkand the Bronx. Because the data on thenumber of wageearners in manufacturingare availableonly in the 1920 censusreturns, these data are matched to theI9Io censusreturns by combin- ingBronx County and New YorkCounty into one case. In addition,because data on rural/urbanpopulation are notavailable in machine-readableform for1920, we matchedthe I9Io censusdata to the 1920 dataset by designating all the populationin BronxCounty as urban.Data on religiousaffiliation by countyis obtainedfrom the Census of ReligiousBodies for 1916. Since thesedata are notavailable in machine-readableform, we enteredthe data forRoman Catholics, Jews, and "totalreligious affiliation" for each county. Protestantsare definedas thetotal affiliated minus the number of Catholics and Jews.We checkedthe influence of thesereligion variables at various pointsin ouranalysis but do notinclude them in Table I becausethey have littleinfluence on theremaining coefficients. 4 The independentvariables, number of foreign-born immigrants, wage earners in manufacturing,and urbanpopulation, are divided by the total county populationin orderto mitigatethe influence of population.The dependent variable,number of votes for the Socialist party, is dividedby the total number of votescast in thecounty for the presidential election. Although there has beensome debate over the possibility of obtaining biased estimates when usingratio variables, Firebaugh (1988) demonstratesthat while the use of ratiovariables may lead tobiased correlation coefficients, no systematicbias is introducedby the use ofratio variables in regression equations. In addition to OLS,we also estimatethe parameters using weighted least squares (WLS). The weightis constructedas a functionof theresidual of theOLS equation, thatis, the absolutevalue of theresiduals are regressedon the predicted valuefrom the OLS equation, with the weight calculated as thereciprocal of thesquare root of thispredicted value (Gujarati 1988: 340). Sincethe WLS resultsdo not varysubstantially from those reported in Table I usingOLS

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 199

(see AppendixB), we havechosen, for ease of presentation,to reportthe OLSresults. 5 Table I combinesthe percentages of Finns,Norwegians, and Swedesinto one variable,Nordic immigrants. The relative smallness and the skewed geo- graphicaldistribution of thesegroups makes it impracticalto analyzeeach individually,yet, given our finding (discussed below) that their presence was stronglyassociated with socialist voting, we attemptto control for their joint influence. 6 Althoughthe proportions of Russians in New YorkCounty (1912) andBronx County(1920) are thehighest among the counties we analyze,neither New Yorknor the Bronx is an "influential"case in thisanalysis using the DFITS measure(Bollen and Jackman1985). The DFBETASmeasure indicates that thesecases do havea relativelylarger influence than other cases on theRus- sian coefficient.When we excludeNew York(1912) andNew Yorkand the Bronx(1920) fromthe analysis, however, the coefficients for the proportion of Russianimmigrants change only slightly. 7 Data fromthe U.S. Bureauof theCensus (I9Io: 193) on mothertongues of Russianimmigrants are brokendown by geographic divisions. The Mid- dle Atlantic(New Yorkand Pennsylvania)had 63% Yiddishand Hebrew speakerscompared with only 37% inthe East North Central (which includes Wisconsin,Illinois, and Ohio), and 26% in theWest North Central (which includesMinnesota). 8 Amongthe counties under consideration in thisstudy, Milwaukee County is an outlieras a resultof boththe large percentage of foreign-bornGerman immigrantsand thehigh level of supportfor the Socialist party. For both 1912 and 1920, Milwaukeehas thelargest standardized residual of anyof thecases thatwe analyze.In addition,examination of the DFITS and DFBETAS measuresindicates that Milwaukee County is an influentialcase (Bollenand Jackman1985), although when we excludeMilwaukee from the analysis the overallfit and coefficients do notchange substantively. 9 Whenwe includevariables for the percentage of Protestantsand theper- centageof Catholics,the coefficient for Germans decreases from -0.123 to -o. I66 and remainsstatistically significant (t ratio = 2.776). Whenwe includeinteraction terms (percentage German times percentage Catholic and percentageGerman times percentage Protestant) in theequation, however, theGerman coefficient decreases (b = -0.556, t ratio= 1.928), butneither of theinteraction terms is significantfor 1912.

REFERENCES

Aronowitz,S. (1973) False Promises:The Shapingof AmericanWorking Class Consciousness.New York:McGraw-Hill. Bade, K. J. (1983) "Germanemigration to theUnited States and continental im- migrationto Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries," in D. Hoerder(ed.) LaborMigration in the Atlantic Economies: The European andNorth American Working Classes during the Period of Industrialization. Westport,CT: Greenwood: 117-42.

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 200 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Barton,J. J. (1975) Peasantsand Strangers.Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bodnar,J. (1985) TheTransplanted: A History of Immigrants inUrban America. Bloomington:Indiana University Press. Bollen, K., and D. Jackman(1985) "Regressiondiagnostics: An expository treatmentof outliersand influentialcases." SociologicalMethods and Re- search 13: 510-42. Brundage,D. (1986) "Irishland and Americanworkers: Class and ethnicityin Denver,Colorado," in D. Hoerder(ed.) "Strugglea HardBattle": Essays on Working-ClassImmigrants. DeKalb: NorthernIllinois University Press: 46-67. Buhle,P. (1987) Marxismin the USA. London:Verso. Carlsson,S. (1976) "Swedesin politics,"in H. Runblomand H. Norman(eds.) From Swedento America.Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress: 291-300. CongressionalQuarterly (1985) Guideto U.S. Elections.2nd ed., Washington: CongressionalQuarterly. Critchlow,D. T., ed. (1986) Socialismin the Heartland:The Midwestern Experience, 1900-1925. NotreDame, IN: Universityof NotreDame Press. Donnelly,J. F. (1982) "CatholicNew Yorkersand New Yorksocialists, 1870- 1920." Ph.D. diss.,New YorkUniversity. Dubofsky,M. (1968) "Success and failureof socialismin New York City, 1900-I918: A case study."Labor History9: 361-75. Ensslen,K., andH. Ickstadt(1983) "Germanworking-class culture in Chicago: Continuityand changein the decade from19oo-19io," in H. Keil and J. B. Jentz(eds.) GermanWorkers in IndustrialChicago, 1850-1910: A ComparativePerspective. DeKalb: NorthernIllinois University Press. Firebaugh,G. (1978) "A rulefor inferring individual-level relationships from aggregatedata." AmericanSociological Review 43: 557-72. - (1988) "The ratiovariable hoax in politicalscience." American Journal of Political Science 32: 523-35. Gedicks,A. (1976) "The socialorigins of radicalism among Finnish immigrants in Midwestmining communities." Review of Radical Political Economics 8: 1-31. George,A., and T. McKeown(1985) "Case studiesand theoriesof organiza- tionaldecision-making." Advances in InformationProcessing in Organiza- tions 2: 21-58. Gorenstein,A. (I96I) "A portraitof ethnicpolitics: The socialistsand the 1908 and I9Io congressionalelections on theEast Side." AmericanJewish Historical Society I: 202-27. Green,J. (I975) "The 'salesmen-soldiers'of the'appeal' army:A profileof rank-and-filesocialist agitators," in B. M. Stave(ed.) Socialismand the Cities.Port Washington, NY: Kennikat:13-40. Gujarati,D. (1988) Basic Econometrics.2nd ed., New York:McGraw-Hill. Handlin,0. (1973) The Uprooted.2nd ed., Boston:Little, Brown. Inter-universityConsortium for Political and Social Research. Historical, Demo- graphic,Economic, and Social Data: The UnitedStates, 1790-1970 [com- puterfile 00031. Ann Arbor,MI: ICPSR.

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ImmigrantSupport for American Socialism 201

Inter-universityConsortium for Political and Social Research.United States His- toricalElection Returns, 1788-1984 [computer file oooI]. AnnArbor, MI: ICPSR. Karson,M. (1958) AmericanLabor Unions and Politics,19oo-I918. Carbon- dale: SouthernIllinois University Press. - (1974) "Reply,"in J. H. M. Laslettand S. M. Lipset(eds.) Failureof a Dream?Essays in theHistory of AmericanSocialism. New York:Anchor Books: 195-98. Keil, H. (1986) "Germanworking-class radicalism in theUnited States from the 187os to WorldWar I," in D. Hoerder(ed.) "Strugglea HardBattle": Essayson Working-ClassImmigrants. DeKalb: NorthernIllinois University Press:71-94. -- , and J. B. Jentz,eds. (1983) GermanWorkers in IndustrialChicago, 1850-I9Io: A ComparativePerspective. DeKalb: NorthernIllinois Univer- sityPress. Kivisto,P. (1984) ImmigrantSocialists in theUnited States: The Case of Finns and theLeft. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Kolehmainen,J. I. (1952) "The inimitableMarxists: The Finnishimmigrant socialists."Michigan History 36: 395-405. Kllman, W., and P. Marschalck(1973) "Germanemigration to the United States,"in D. Flemingand B. Bailyn(eds.) Perspectivesin AmericanHis- tory,vol. 7. Cambridge,MA: Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History:499-554. Kostiainen,A. (1983) "For or againstamericanization? The case ofthe Finnish immigrantradicals," in D. Hoerder(ed.) AmericanLabor and Immigra- tionHistory, 1877-I92Os: Recent European Research. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress: 259-75. Laslett,J. H. M. (I970) Laborand theLeft: A Studyof Socialistand Radical Influencesin theAmerican Labor Movement, 1881-1924. New York:Basic Books. - (1986) "Swansong or new social movement? Socialism and Illinois Dis- trict12, UnitedMine Workers of America,I919-I926," in D. T. Critchlow (ed.) Socialismin theHeartland: The MidwesternExperience, 1900-1925. NotreDame, IN: Universityof Notre Dame Press:167-214. Leggett,J. (1963) "Uprootednessand working-class consciousness." American Journalof Sociology68: 682-92. Leinenweber,C. (I98I) "The classand ethnic bases of New York City socialism, 1904-1915."Labor History 22: 31-56. Liebman,A. (1979) Jewsand the Left. New York:John Wiley. Lipset,S. M. (1977) "Whyno socialismin theUnited States?" in S. Bialer and S. Sulzar (eds.) Sourcesof ContemporaryRadicalism. Boulder, co: Westview:31-149. , and G. Marks (forthcoming)"Why Is ThereNo Socialismin the - UnitedStates?" A ComparativeHistorical Perspective. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress. Lorence,J. J. (1982) "Socialismin northernWisconsin, I9IO-I920: An ethno- culturalanalysis." Mid-America 64: 25-41. Marks,G. (1989) Unionsin Politics:Britain, Germany, and the United States in

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 202 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

theNineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sityPress. Miller,S. M. (1975) "Milwaukee:Of ethnicity and labor," in B. M. Stave(ed.) Socialismand the Cities. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat: 41-71. (1986) "Castinga wide net:The Milwaukeemovement to 1920," in D. T. Critchlow(ed.) Socialismin the Heartland:The MidwesternEx- perience,19oo00-1925. Notre Dame, IN: Universityof NotreDame Press: 18-45. Montgomery,D. (1986) "Nationalism,American patriotism, and class con- sciousnessamong immigrant workers in the UnitedStates in the epoch of WorldWar I," in D. Hoerder(ed.) "Strugglea Hard Battle":Essays on Working-ClassImmigrants. DeKalb: NorthernIllinois University Press: 327-51. Nelli,H. S. (1970) Italiansin Chicago,I880-1930. New York:Oxford Univer- sityPress. Oestreicher,R. (1988) "Urbanworking-class political behavior and theoriesof Americanelectoral politics, 1870-1940." American Journal of History74: 1257-86. Perrier,H. (1983) "The socialistand the working class in New York, 1890-96," in D. Hoerder(ed.) AmericanLabor and Immigration History, 1877-1920S: RecentEuropean Research. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress: 111-34. Rosenblum,G. (1973) ImmigrantWorkers: Their Impact on AmericanLabor Radicalism.New York:Basic Books. Shively,W. P. (1969) " 'Ecological' inference:The uses of aggregatedata to studyindividuals." American Political Science Review 63: 1183-96. U.S. Bureau of the Census (i9Io) ThirteenthCensus of the UnitedStates. Abstract.Washington: Bureau of the Census. (i916) Censusof ReligiousBodies, vols. 1-2. Washington:Bureau of theCensus. (192o) FourteenthCensus of the UnitedStates, vol. 3. Washington: Bureauof the Census. Wefald,J. (1971) A Voiceof Protest:Norwegians in AmericanPolitics, 189o- 1917.Northfield, MN: Norwegian-American Historical Association. Wilentz,R. S. (I979) "IndustrializingAmerica and theIrish: Towards a new departure."Labor History 20: 579-95. Wolfle,L. M., and R. W. Hodge (1983) "Radical-partypolitics in Illinois, 1880-1924." SociologicalInquiry 53: 33-60.

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:04:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions