Navigation – Plan du site

Hungarian migrant communities decoupling from the old country in the United States (1900-1920s)

Le détachement du pays d’origine des communautés de migrants hongrois aux États-Unis, de 1900 à 1920
Balázs Pálvölgyi
p. 51-64

Résumés

La première décennie du xxe siècle a connu la période la plus importante de migrations hongroises vers les États-Unis, les migrants représentant l’intégralité de la diversité ethnique du pays d’origine. Malgré l’effort de Budapest de contrôler la migration, et malgré l’appel de la capitale à la loyauté, en vertu de l’État-nation, les migrants se sont progressivement détachés de la Hongrie. Cela commença avec les migrants qui étaient originaires de minorités ethniques, et à partir de la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale, les migrants hongrois connurent le même mouvement.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 George M Stephenson, A History of American Immigration, 1820-1924, Boston, Ginn&Co, 1926, p. 106-10 (...)

1In the 19th century, the political migrants as a consequence of the 1848 revolution were the first important Hungarian emigrant group to the United States. The first wave of emigrants arrived late 1849 from Hungary. They were defenders of Komárom, who received amnesty and a passport in exchange for surrendering the fortress. A larger group with Kossuth arrived in 1851 from the Ottoman Empire1. Having been forced overseas by political events, a change in the political climate in the Habsburg Empire, involving the possibility of amnesty, led to a number of refugees returning to Hungary by the 1860s.Their return came a few years before the mass-migration fuelled by primarily economic factors.

  • 2 A Magyar Szent Korona országainak kivándorlása és visszavándorlása. 1899-1913 [Migration and return (...)

2Migration from Hungary to the United States, peaking in the first decade of the 20th century, constituted one of the strongest population movements in Hungary from the middle of the 19th century to the outbreak of World War I. In this period Hungary entered the modern era of migration. While in the past Hungary had been rather a country of immigration, from the late 19th century it emerged as a country of emigration. The turn of the century represented a milestone in Budapest migration policy too. The figures indicated a massive increase in migrants at this time: while in 1899 the number of migrants totalled 37,193, five years later it numbered 70,488 in the official statistics, spurring the government into formulating a new migration policy2.

3Hungarian migration issues increased in complexity, reflecting not only economic but ethnic minority problems, too. Migration posed problems for Budapest: how to handle the flows; how to maintain, if not more, the status quo or the balance between the various ethnic groups at home; how to control migrant groups’ activities in the United States.

4The Hungarian migrant community’s near thirty-year-development in the US shows how the most important stages evolved, the immigrant groups appeared, became a community and the trend towards assimilation. Seeing the strong activity of Budapest in the issue, this cycle’s stages and periods clearly reflected in the governmental aims and measures.

First period: creation of migrant communities from Austria-Hungary and governmental actions before World War I

  • 3 A Magyar Szent Korona országainak kivándorlása…, op. cit., p. 18; Puskás Julianna, “Kelet-Európából (...)
  • 4 Bánffy Dezső, Magyar nemzetiségi politika [Hungarian ethnic policy], Budapest, Grill, 1902; Owen V. (...)

5Migration from Hungary in this period was fuelled basically by the economic situation, in other words, the poorest regions’ exclusion from industrial development and the high proportion of latifundia, blocking the growth of small and medium sized farms, were the primary drivers of migration, in the absence of political motives. Although economic based, the fact that the wave of migration from Hungary in this period represented almost every ethnic community quickly transformed it into a political issue for the government. The overwhelming majority of migrants from Hungary were of ethnic minority background, while ethnic Hungarians constituted a minority between 1899 and 19133. In the third part of the 19th century the ethnic minorities’ political movements were strengthening in the multi-ethnic Hungary, while the government basically strove to form the nation-state, putting aside the ethnic minorities’ political requests and goals4. This tension between the ethnic minorities – in the context of the migration issues first of all the Slovaks – and the governments representing the ethnic Hungarian interests and nation-state program became one of the most important problems of the pre-war decades. Consequently, the migration policy of the pre-war period was necessarily placed into the ethnic minority context. Budapest had to take this into account during the elaboration of steps for controlling the ethnic minorities’ communities in the United States so as to in turn control their movements in Hungary.

  • 5 e.g.: Report of the Deputy-Lieutenant of Ugocsa County on 3 September 1886, National Archives of Hu (...)
  • 6 e.g. Hegedüs Loránt, A magyarok kivándorlása Amerikába [Migration of Hungarians to America], Budape (...)
  • 7 Erlass des Ministers des Innern vom 23. Oktober 1852. Z. 25 748 (Verbot der Gründung von Agenturen) (...)
  • 8 Memorandum of the Police Superintendent of Budapest to the Minister of Interior, on 17 May 1888, MN (...)

6In the eyes of the political elite, because of its effect on the economy and on military capacity, migration in general appeared as a phenomenon harmful to national interests5. Till the end of the 19th century the government focused rather on the process itself, how to slow down the flux, than on the relationship with the migrant groups in the United States6. As the strengthening migration flow was thought to be fuelled predominantly by the transatlantic steamship ticket agents’ activity, Budapest – like Vienna – turned against it, choosing a traditional administrative solution7. The 1881 law on migration agents constituted the overture of measures aiming to press back the steamship ticket selling activity in Hungary8. Viewing the nature of the measures elaborated up to the end of the 19th century, it could be concluded that in the period in question Budapest– at a legal level – did not differentiate between the various ethnic groups of migrants from Hungary, considered their citizenship alone and effectively handled the migrants as a homogeneous group.

  • 9 Kun József, Gróf Tisza István képviselőházi beszédei 3 [Speeches in the Chamber of Deputies of Coun (...)

7Furthermore, it seems as if the government did not understand either the core trends or the importance of Hungarian migration before the turn of the century. It abandoned the comprehensive migration policy – taking into account the economic bases of the movement – and focused on only how to slow down the flux with administrative measures9.

  • 10 Hungarian migration via the German ports: 1896-1900: 114 835 and 1900-1905: 365 329. A Magyar Szent (...)
  • 11 In 1901-1902 from the 110 000 migrants from Hungary to the US the proportion of the ethnic Hungaria (...)

8Despite continuous governmental efforts and harsh measures, the above policy couldn’t bring a real breakthrough and the migrants’ number reached repeatedly new records around the turn of the century10. As a consequence, by that time strong migrant communities appeared in the United States, representing the country’s whole array of ethnic diversity and developed independently, in practice without the assistance of Budapest11.

  • 12 The “old immigration” in the US was characterised by the dominant part of the north-European migran (...)
  • 13 Cf. Emigration conditions in Europe. Reports of the Immigration Commission, Washington, GPO, 1911, (...)
  • 14 Leopold Lajos, “A visszavándorlás mérlege” [Account of return migration], Huszadik Század, 9, 1908, (...)
  • 15 See e.g.: Huldah Florence Cook, The Magyars of Cleveland: With a Brief Sketch of their Historical, (...)

9The last decades of the 19th century became the period of “new immigration” in the United States, in which the newcomers weren’t traditional settlers anymore, but they were rather guest-workers12. Hungarian migration trends also manifested this character, above all, in intensive circular migration together with the fact that the majority of immigrants were young males of military service age13. Their self-definition was based clearly on their roots; they did not speak English properly and most of them remained Hungarian citizens, showing that most of them – with their savings earned in the United States – intended to return to the old country14. Nevertheless, by the last decade of the 19th century, migrant groups from Hungary were launching their own life in the United States: migrant organisations, schools and parishes were created and built up their ties with the host country15. By that time, it also became clear that Hungarian citizen migrants of different ethnic background sought to make their own life in the US and saw the old country quite differently: while for the ethnic Hungarians the Hungarian state remained the home state after all, the migrants of ethnic minority background regarded Hungary and its governments with a growing hostility.

  • 16 Apart from the migration law, a law on the border-guard corps, on the passports and finally on alie (...)
  • 17 Kuno Klebelsberg’s résumé about the “American action”, on 20 July 1900, MNL OL K26-661-1906-XXI-854 (...)

10Due to this situation, Budapest admitted that its migration policy based on pure administrative measures had to be reformed, and prepared a package for a comprehensive policy, regulating the most important elements of the issue16. It focused not only on the migration agents, but also on the migrants themselves, aiming to provide further protection first of all vis-à-vis the big steamship companies defining the necessary elements of the service provided by the companies to the migrants. Furthermore, it prescribed that a system to ensure and promote the migrants’ loyalty towards the Hungarian state and finally to serve their cultural and religious life was to be created. This was the key element of the governmental program, and it fitted into the new legal framework, elaborated by 1903 as well. In order to accomplish these goals, and rather to ensure the country’s security interests in relation to the issue, a secret plan of “American action” was elaborated and launched17. Thus, with these changes the government started to handle the migrant groups rather as communities instead of Hungarian citizen guest-workers abroad as before, communities which have their own interests and could have an impact on the development of the political situation in Hungary. All in all, due to the interaction between the migrants and their relatives in the old country, for Budapest the different migrant groups’ activity in the United States appeared as an internal problem as well.

  • 18 Information of the Common Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Interior about the Slovak (...)

11The ethnic minorities’ religious, cultural and self-aid organisations played a crucial role in the forming of the migrants’ political position and approach towards Hungary, and the government took steps to gather information about their possible contacts with the ethnic minorities’ movement in Hungary as in the case of the American-Slovak association Národný Slovenský Spolok (Slovak National Association)18.

  • 19 The Minister of Interior’s information to the counties’ administration and to the police superinten (...)

12Budapest was alarmed by reports that the ethnic minorities’ leading figures in the United States had found routes to their organisations in the old country. Diverse materials were being sent to Hungary, representing a strong national program, and suspected of fuelling the movement’s hostility towards the government’ s nation state and pro Hungarian stance19.

13From that point on the governmental goal became quite clear: to both counterbalance the minorities’ activity impacting Hungarian interests and to strengthen loyalty towards Budapest. Budapest, weighing up each migrant group’s importance in the context of the Hungarian situation, realised that it had to elaborate different steps focusing on the Slovak, the Ruthenian and of course the Hungarian community in the United States. In the internal communication, this constituted the actions’ three “branches”, the Hungarian, the Slovak and the Ruthenian of the “American action”.

  • 20 Report of Austria-Hungary’s Ambassador on 27 April 1903, MNL OL K26-575-1903-XIX-2285; The Prime Mi (...)

14The government had to navigate its steps within a narrow band: while it became clear that the core of the problem was to be addressed on American soil, it was also evident that Budapest had to act carefully, taking into consideration the American concerns about sovereignty20. Consequently, only a few tools remained at Budapest’s disposal, namely the direct support of Hungarian schools, loyal newspapers, priests and clergymen and finally the efforts to fit the churches and parishes into the Hungarian church system.

  • 21 June Granatir Alexander, “The laity in the church: Slovaks and the Catholic Church in pre-World War (...)
  • 22 Common Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister on the Catholic Slovaks residing in the U (...)

15By the turn of the century these migrant communities created their own churches, having invited priests and clergymen individually21. Reports informed the government that a number of the arrived priests active in the minorities’ parishes accepted or even fuelled the ethnic minority migrants’ hostility towards Budapest and took part in the work of self-help or cultural associations22. The activity of the above organisations, coupled with the migrant press as well, constituted an important forum for the criticism against the Hungarian government’s policy on the domain of the migration and the ethnic minorities. Therefore, as a common measure, Budapest took steps in order to ensure that the Hungarian bishops would send only loyal priests to the United States.

  • 23 See: Stéphane Dufoix, Diasporas, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, 2008, (...)

16The Hungarian migration trends and its bases were too complex for an effective and comprehensive governmental policy at the same time. All in all, between 1900 and 1914 it became clear to the government that the migrant communities had different strategies towards the Hungarian state. While the ethnic minorities’ communities seemed to become more and more independent from Budapest, which meant that they acted in their own national interests, for the Hungarian community Budapest remained a point of reference during the whole period. It seems that this double challenge appearing in the community’s relationship towards the old country influenced dominantly the governmental steps’ character23. Working on the issue, as the return and circular migration remained strong and close connections endured with the old country as well, Budapest couldn’t let the ethnic minorities’ community develop on their own in the US, in other words, the security reasons defined the governmental steps in this period.

17Besides the ethnic questions – which constituted the most threatening challenge for Budapest – the different paths of migrant groups’ development turned this picture into a complicated puzzle. On the one hand, the phenomenon of circular migration characterised further the Hungarian migration which seemed to underpin the manoeuvres for control of Budapest, on the other, the creation of independent communities whose members realised that they would rather stay in the United States ultimately made Budapest’s efforts futile. The relations between the migrant communities and the Hungarian government remained burdened by this complexity and ambiguity.

Migrant communities beyond the home country’s control (1914-1918)

  • 24 Der Rückgang des transatlantischen Passagierverkehrs während des Krieges”, Weltwirtschaftliches Ar (...)
  • 25 Report of the Ambassador of Austria-Hungary in the US to the Common Minister for Foreign Affairs, o (...)

18Although the United States did not enter the war in 1914, the migrants’ position changed from August of 1914: the transatlantic journey suddenly became uncertain, which affected directly a large group of migrants24. Since there was a large number of circular migrants coming from Austria-Hungary as well, those who planned the return on German steamships had to postpone their journey25.

  • 26 Gusztáv Thirring, Hungarian Migration…, op. cit., p434.

19In the following years contact with the old country remained one of the migrants’ most acute problems. Nevertheless, despite the military manoeuvres on the sea, the steamship connection did not end totally between the United States and Europe and even the Hungarian citizens – of course not for those who had to fulfil their military obligations ‒ had the possibility to get to overseas destinations from Danish and – prior to May of 1915, when Italy entered the War – Italian ports26.

  • 27 Amerikai Magyar Hírlap, 1 July 1915.
  • 28 AMN 11 September 1914.
  • 29 Amerikai Magyarság, 19 August 1915; AMN 6 April 1915.
  • 30 The Common Minister for Foreign Affairs information to the Hungarian Prime Minister on 7 May 1915, (...)
  • 31 Szarka László, “A szlovák kérdés a magyar kormány nemzetiségpolitikájában, 1906-1918” [The Slovak q (...)

20As a constant connecting link to the old country, and an important financial source, the government launched the issue of “warfare loan” bonds not only in Hungary, but also in the United States as well27. Besides the actions led by Budapest, the Hungarian migrants themselves made efforts to express their loyalty vis-à-vis the old country28. Furthermore, the Hungarian organisations expressed their wishes relating to American foreign policy as well. They stressed that the United States should uphold its neutrality in the war, which was in the basic interests of the Hungarian migrants as well29. In this period tension between Budapest and the biggest ethnic migrant group, the Slovaks, heightened, Slovak newspapers in the United States stressing the importance of the liberation of Slovaks in Hungary30. This represented the clash between Budapest’s official approach and the Slovak political goals, the chasm between the Hungarian and the ethnic minorities’ (political) elites of course, ultimately concluding in the notion of secession or independence, and finally the Pittsburgh Agreement of 1918 involving the Czech and Slovak organisations in the United States aimed at creating an independent Czech-Slovak state31.

21Nevertheless, the Hungarian migrants’ situation became more and more ambiguous. Although, the United States maintained its neutral position till 1917, it clearly sided with the Entente, making the Central Powers’ citizens a source of suspicion in the eyes of American politicians and the US public. Employed mainly in the industrial sector, large numbers of them in munitions factories, they considered themselves in the crossfire, so to speak: US was selling war materials to their country’s enemies.

  • 32 Szabadság, 8 March 1915.

22In this situation, even the Hungarian newspapers in the United States stressed the importance of naturalisation as an act of loyalty towards the United States which in the previous decades had remained rather sporadic32. From the middle of the war on, a certain duplicity hallmarked the migrants’ strategy in the United States. On the one hand, the attachment to the old country remained a strong factor of their politico-economic behaviour, the charitable acts continued and they bought the Hungarian state bonds as well, on the other, in the newspapers they expressed the necessity for demonstration to their attachment to the United States, too. In addition, they launched a new debate about their future plans to return to the old country.

  • 33 A háború utáni sürgős teendők a kivándorlás és visszavándorlás tárgyában. A Kivándorlási Tanács Ött (...)
  • 34 Report of the Minister of Finances to the Prime Minister on 8 April 1916, MNL OL K26-1075-1916-XIV- (...)

23This was a successful initiative: the migrant newspapers’ debate pushed the Hungarian government towards studying the perspectives of the return migration. By this time the war casualties were escalating and there were debates in Hungary about the estimated loss in manpower and about its possible replacement. Seeing that before the war the government stressed the importance of the Hungarian migrants’ return from the United States, it was evident that Budapest would reckon with this possibility and develop a strategy accordingly. As a direct consequence of the Hungarian migrant association’s session in 1915 where the necessity of the return was stated, the Hungarian Migration Council prepared a study defining the future policy of the Hungarian government on the migrants’ return33. The real question was whether the return migration could counterbalance the casualties in the longer term and how it would be possible to ensure its socio-economic conditions34.

  • 35 Szabadság, 17 December 1917.

24Moreover, the persons with a vested interest in the migrants’ presence in the United States, namely those individuals whose living depended on the migrants – hosts, newspaper editors or even clergy – pointed out the difficulties involved in a return and endeavoured to show that there was no future in Hungary for the returnees. They claimed that expectations regarding opportunities and the volume of return migration were overexaggerated; consequently, it would be necessary to make the Hungarian organisations function further in the United States35. All in all, it seems that both the Council and the migrants’ forums, first of all the newspapers and the associations, deemed that the solution to the problem lay in the hands of the Hungarian government, or depended rather on the Hungarian state of affairs.

  • 36 Presidential proclamation regarding regulation of alien enemies”, in Emerson Hough, The Web, Chica (...)
  • 37 See e.g. War Policy for Aliens. Memorandum prepared October, 1917 by the National Americanization C (...)
  • 38 Szabadság, 8 December 1917.
  • 39 AMN 17 August 1917; AMN 28 September 1917; Nicole M. Phelps, “ ‘A status which does not exist anymo (...)

25In 1917 the United States entered the war, a development which completely changed the Hungarian migrants’ situation, cutting the umbilical cord between them and the old country emphatically. Besides the hostility of the American public opinion vis-à-vis the immigrants of the Central Powers, the change of their legal position constituted a threatening situation as well. Those who failed to acquire American citizenship found themselves trapped: they couldn’t leave the country while their situation became even more fragile36. Moreover, in many cases the migrants’ citizenship status was not clear either. Due to economic reasons, primarily their preponderance in the war materials’ production sector, Austria-Hungary’s migrant workers weren’t expelled, finally there wasn’t mass and general internment either and they could remain in their workplaces in the end, but an intensive action started promoting their naturalisation37. From that point onwards the community’s loyalty and attachment to their new country became the most important determining issue in their daily lives. The position of Austria-Hungary was analysed in long articles, striving to show that the citizens of the Empire weren’t hostile towards the United States38. While the migrants themselves were thinking over their position in the United States, Washington was also in a delicate situation as to how to manage these communities. Besides the policy of no internment or no mass expulsion, there were controversial cases as well. Budapest was informed about the American authorities pressurising Hungarian citizens into naturalization and military service, in addition there were case of Hungarian citizens being deported39.

  • 40 The stance of ethnic minorities in the US vis-à-vis Budapest depended partly on their relationship (...)
  • 41 John Palmer Gavit, Americans by Choice, New York, Harper&Bros, 1922, p. 255-260.
  • 42 Puskás Júlia, “Magyar szervezetek Amerikában (az 1880-as évektől az 1960-as évekig)” [Hungarian org (...)
  • 43 See Americanization as a war measure. Report of a conference called by the Secretary of the Interio (...)
  • 44 Szabadság 29 January 1918; Leara D. Rhodes, The Ethnic Press: Shaping the American Dream, New York, (...)
  • 45 Alan Axelrod, Selling the Great War: The Making of American Propaganda, New York, Palgrave Macmilla (...)
  • 46 Szabadság, 27 February 1918; Ludwig Ernő, “Az amerikai magyarság és a világháború” [American Hungar (...)
  • 47 It led finally to the resignation of the League’s founder, Sándor Konta from his post in the League (...)

26The naturalisation question arose once again, posing a difficult question for the migrants as a number of them did not intend to cut the ties to the old country. However, it would appear that by 1918 even the ethnic Hungarian community’s approach changed towards Austria Hungary40. A number of Hungarian migrants entered the American army voluntarily, thereby acquiring American citizenship41. Furthermore, in early 1918 the American Hungarian Association, founded in 1906 with the aim of creating general organisation for Hungarians, and maintaining a rather a pro-independence political stance, held a rally in which a declaration of loyalty was issued towards the United States. The members of the Association highlighted the importance of making a commitment to the United States, together with the freedom and democracy represented and provided by the United States42. They expressed their thankfulness that Washington did not consider them as enemy aliens, and they declared that they accepted the Americanisation goals of Washington too43. These declarations clearly showed the changes in the position of the Hungarian migrants in the United States. The change is radical, seeing that they regarded the naturalisation and consequently the Americanisation, and ultimately assimilation as normal milestones for migrant communities. The Association heralded in early 1918 the establishment of the American Hungarian Loyalty League in Bridgeport as well as representing the political goals of Washington, moreover, with the hidden support of the Committee on Public Information, i.e. the US government’s organisation of propaganda44. The League’s goals and the ideas were presented in meetings, where not only the Hungarian founders of the organisation but also leading American figures, such as the lieutenant governor of Connecticut took part45. It published a declaration which clearly showed the turning point: they stressed not only the loyalty vis-à-vis the United States, but also expressed that the American victory is important for the Association, because it could promote the independence of the Hungarian state46. It seems that this declaration – despite the fact that the creation of the League was defined by individual interests too, together with rumours that its first leader was playing a triple game involving the American, the Hungarian government and his own interests of course – formed a watershed in the evolution of the Hungarian communities’ position on American soil47.

  • 48 Puskás Julianna, Kivándorló magyarok…, op. cit., p. 321.

27Besides the migrants’ delicate position, defining the declarations and their balancing act between Washington and Budapest, the economic factor played an important role in their long term strategy. In these years, most of them could smoothly continue their work in the industrial sector, and in this period of war prosperity even the employers took various measures to prevent the workers from returning to their old country. They subsidised newspapers and journals advertising the benefits of the American lifestyle and economic perspectives, furthermore, they launched various programs providing real estate property for the workers, thereby ensuring their staying in the United States48. Thus, despite the vicissitudes in the war years, the Hungarian community could realise the clear advantages of their actual position in comparison to their previous one in Hungary, which became even more evident when they could enter into contact with their relatives in the old country. Nevertheless, the war became at the same time the moment of decision between the old and the new home for the migrants and the period of convictions based on illusions both for them and for Budapest. By the end of the war it became quite clear that the ways of influence and control had changed. While it seems that before the war the forming of a real community with its own identity and own institutes was one of the most important issues, the war years’ changes pushed them further towards independence from Budapest.

Decoupling from the old country 1918-1930s

  • 49 The leading figures of the Reformed Church had been received by the president in the summer of 1918 (...)
  • 50 Csóti Csaba, Menekültkérdés Magyarországon, 1916-1924 között [The refugees’ question in Hungary bet (...)

28In the autumn of 1918 Austria-Hungary collapsed and one could expect that the new challenges would have erased the main lines of the Hungarian migration policy. Of course, the collapse and the revolution set the migration issue on another track but the government could and had to use its existing network in the United States, first of all, when it became evident that the country’s territorial integrity was at stake49. Nevertheless, it seems that from the turn of 1918-1919 on, the Hungarian government did not have enough tools to manage the migration issue, not even in an informal way, and it had to struggle for survival. That period was hallmarked by other intensive migration movement: the influx of refugees from the Hungarian territories occupied from late 1918 by the successor states50.

  • 51 Petition of women from Felsőkézsmárk to the Minister of Interior on 6 March 1919, MNL OL K70-14-191 (...)

29Furthermore, at that time neither the pre-war transport connections nor the money transfer ways recovered, which prolonged the migrants’ relatives’ sad plight: there were a number of migrants who arrived in the United States alone and in the pre-war times regularly sent money to the family living in Hungary. The case, when a claim submitted at the beginning of March 1919, in which seven wives urged the government to take steps for the migrants’ return depicted the typical situation of the migrants’ relatives and show the question’s importance51.

  • 52 D.g. AMN 3 May 1919; 27 June 1919.

30From the end of March 1919, the time of the Council’s Republic takeover, even the limited return migration routes were frozen and Hungary became isolated. Besides the clashes and military operations, Budapest took measures which upset the migrant communities, contributing to the general sense that conditions for returning were not favourable52. What’s more, given the lack of diplomatic relations, the Council’s Republic wouldn’t have been in a position to manage any return action from the United States, in any case.

  • 53 Ságvári Ágnes, “Diplomáciai iratok 1920-ból, Kun Béla kijuttatásáról Ausztriából Szovjetoroszország (...)

31After the collapse of the Council’s Republic’s regime in the summer of 1919, migration issues came into focus again. Despite the fact that this change inevitably generated a new wave of (political)refugees firstly from Budapest to Vienna, it seems that after the Council’s Republic’s isolated situation, the country’s difficulties eased53.

  • 54 Szabadság 14 March 1919; AMN 25 November 1919, Amerikai Magyar Hírlap 23 December 1920.
  • 55 Memorandum of the Minister’s Commissioner to the Prime Minister on 30 October 1919, MNL OL K26-1210 (...)
  • 56 Proposal to the government’s session on 22 March 1921, MNL OL K150-3609-1920-V-20-74147
  • 57 William A. Berridge, “Cycles of Employment and Unemployment in the United States, 1914-1921”, Journ (...)
  • 58 Memorandum of the Hungarian migration commissioner in Naples on 13 March 1921, MNL OL K69-65-1921-1 (...)

32Following the reestablishment of the postal connection between the two countries the migrants could enter into contact with their old country, and the first information received in Budapest referred to the return intentions54. The ministers’ commissioner of the National Office for Food submitted a plan concerning the expected development. The money transfers constituted a crucial issue among the questions emerging in relation to the migrants and return migration55. Finally, Budapest concluded concession agreements with the influential steamship companies of the Entente in order to ensure a stable connection between the old country and the United States56. A number of Hungarian migrants in the United States believed that prosperity had come to an end, so the economic outlook seemed to have turned gloomy57. Budapest received information that this return migration movement appeared not only among the Hungarian migrants but also all “new migrants” in the United States. Although it sent commissioners to the bigger receiving ports and made efforts to gather information about the return migration trends, the extent of the Hungarian government’s actions in practical terms remained confined to direct measures to assist in the return journey and money changing58.

  • 59 Budapesti Hírlap 24 February 1920; Zeidler Miklós, “Társadalom és gazdaság Trianon után” [Society a (...)

33In the period of an acute refugee crisis after the collapse of 1918, namely the mass influx of refugees from the seceded domains of the country, the return from the United States attracted the public’s attention, and the fact that the commissioner for refugees received the returnees’ train in Budapest showed that the arrival of a few hundred Hungarian migrants from the United States constituted good news both for the government and for the public59.

  • 60 Report of the Hungarian Consulate in Hamburg on 31 January 1921, MNL OL K69-65-1921-14/I-97335; Pro (...)

34The anticipated big return flow never materialized. Reports pointed to the fact that even the American government was aware of the long term economic risks of the mass return movement and the money transfers, consequently Washington planned the introduction of a tax on these transfers60. Moreover, Budapest couldn’t present a really attractive future to the return migrants, without a comprehensive land reform, couldn’t ensure new possibilities for acquiring land property, the real bases for an effective return migration policy were lacking. Hungary could not provide a promising future for either those living before the war in the regions remaining within the country’s new border, or for those whose former home was situated in a successor state.

  • 61 Warner A. Parker, “The quota provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924”, The American Journal of In (...)
  • 62 Report of the Hungarian Consulate in Hamburg to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 June 1921 - M (...)
  • 63 Gusztáv Thirring, Hungarian Migration…, op. cit., p. 438.

35The American migration policy became more and more restrictive: the 1920s were characterised by the Quota Acts, limiting immigration from Hungary too, thereby making the migrants wary61. In light of the bleak Hungarian prospects, a situation in which the migrants feared that even their American savings couldn’t guarantee a satisfactory future, they set about turning their possible stay to the United States into a definite one62. All in all, simultaneously with the (modest) return migration trends, the migration strengthened too, partly because of those whose relatives already lived in the United States. Finally, the net migration to Hungary remained slightly positive in the first half of the 1920s63.

  • 64 Report of the Chargé d’affaires to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 25 September 1922, MNL OL K (...)
  • 65 The Prime Minister concerning the budget of the Hungarian governmental activities abroad on 22 Dece (...)

36Concerning the former actions targeting the migrants in the US, Budapest had to rethink its possibilities. Since after the peace treaty of 1920 the question of ethnic minorities did not form a real problem anymore, the government made only sporadic, limited efforts in order to observe the new neighbouring countries’ policies in relation to their migrant communities in the United States64. The government had to reconsider the system of subsidies as well. During the War, the funds deriving from Hungary formed a stable resource for the American-Hungarian communities and it was evident that the official policy of Budapest counted on the further cooperation with the Hungarian organisations, associations and parishes. On this basis, considerable sums were transferred to the above players forming the Hungarian government’s invisible network in the United States65.

37In the post war years, it became obvious that, due to the new American law, namely the Quota Acts, mass migration was gone for good, hence there was no reason – and no financial grounds either for reestablishing the policy’s old framework and institutions set up during the time of the community’s continuous growth.

  • 66 Report of the Hungarian Consul-General in New York on 14 February 1927, MNL OL K28-168-1927-226; Ba (...)

38In this new period of the community’s future, the second generation’s identity became one of the most important questions. This wasn’t a surprise for Budapest though: prior to the war, consular reports informed the government that the second generation would to all intents and purposes be lost to the old country. This perspective became reality in the 1920s: due to the American education, the English-speaking environment, the members of the second generation spoke less and less Hungarian. It became a significant episode of assimilation in the 1920s, when a young member of the community informed a visitor priest that he was a Yankee, not a Hungarian66.

39Given the fact that Hungary couldn’t control the community, and more or less lost its position as a protecting umbrella, that only left the cultural ties: Budapest stressed the importance of language, Hungarian traditions and tried to maintain the attachment to the community, there remained in the end only the steps focusing rather on the emotional element of the connection, but it seems that the actions’ effect remained only limited and couldn’t stop the ongoing assimilation trend.

Conclusions

40As the migration evolution was considered enmeshed with both the country’s military capacity and the ethnic minorities’ question, the creation of a coherent migration policy became necessary for Budapest. For the Hungarian government, loyalty and control, where it came into conflict with both American interests and with the ethnic minority migrants’ forming of a national identity and interests. The quick process of decoupling, the change of identity and loyalty appeared as a security risk for Budapest: the ethnic minority migrant groups maintained a connection with the old country. In the end, Budapest lost the possibility of long term control over these migrant groups even before 1914. The Hungarian migrant groups’ stance changed clearly only during the war, when the issue of identity and loyalty vis-à-vis the United States became a question of first importance, a change which accelerated the general trend of assimilation and decoupling. For the ethnic minority migrants Budapest lost its former importance and position after the collapse of course, and there remained only the problem of the ethnic Hungarian migrant community in the United States. Given the fact that the old country’s situation changed radically after 1918, becoming unable to ensure an economic future for the migrants, the option of a return faded away, which meant that important ties between the old country and the migrant community were cut for good. The cultural connection and the language community remained with the old country of course, however the migrants’ mother tongue lost its status and by the time of the second generation English had slowly taken the place of Hungarian.

41Despite the goals and efforts, the governmental policy couldn’t have been successful, Budapest couldn’t change the migration pattern, and in the end the migrant communities’ evolution in the US could only result in the processes of decoupling and assimilation that have been delineated. They, in turn, influenced, fuelled and led also by the catastrophes of the 20th  century.

Haut de page

Notes

1 George M Stephenson, A History of American Immigration, 1820-1924, Boston, Ginn&Co, 1926, p. 106-109; Gusztáv Thirring, “Hungarian migration of modern times”, in Walter F. Willcox (ed.), International Migrations, vol. II: Interpretations, New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1931, p. 411; Jánossy Dénes, A Kossuth-emigráció Angliában és Amerikában, 1851-1852 [The Kossuth-emigration in England and in the USA, 1851-1852], I. kötet, Budapest, Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1940, p. 2; Bona Gábor, “’48-as magyar emigránsok Amerikában (Az iparlovag, az anglikán lelkész és az ezredes)” [Emigrants of ’48 in the US (The industrialist, the anglican priest and the colonel)], in Illésné Kovács Mária (ed.), Docere et movere: Bölcsészet- és társadalomtudományi tanulmányok a Miskolci Egyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar 20 éves jubileumára, p. 175-182, p. 175; Sabine Freitag, “The begging bowl of Revolution: The fund-raising tours of German and Hungarian exiles to North America, 1851-1852”, in id. (ed.), Exiles from European Revolutions. Refugees in Mid-Victorian England, New York-Oxford, Berghahn, 2003, p. 169-178.

2 A Magyar Szent Korona országainak kivándorlása és visszavándorlása. 1899-1913 [Migration and return migration of the Hungarian Holy Crown’s countries, 1899-1913], Budapest, M. Kir. Közp. Statisztikai Hivatal, 1918, p. 14.

3 A Magyar Szent Korona országainak kivándorlása…, op. cit., p. 18; Puskás Julianna, “Kelet-Európából az USA-ba vándorlás folyamata, 1861-1924” [The process of migration from Eastern Europe to the USA, 1861-1924], Történelmi Szemle, 10, 1984, p. 145-164, there p. 154-155; Puskás Júlia, “Kivándorlás Magyarországról az Egyesült Államokba 1914 előtt” [Migration from Hungary to the United States prior to 1914], Történelmi szemle, 17, 1974, p. 32-67, there p. 46.

4 Bánffy Dezső, Magyar nemzetiségi politika [Hungarian ethnic policy], Budapest, Grill, 1902; Owen V. Johnson, “Losing faith: The Slovak-Hungarian constitutional struggle, 1906-1914”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 22, 1998, “Cultures and Nations of Central and Eastern Europe”, p. 293-312, there p. 293-294; Polányi Imre, A szlovák társadalom és polgári nemzeti mozgalom a századfordulón (1895-1905) [Slovak society and civil national movement at the turn of the century (1895-1905)], Budapest, Akadémiai, 1987; Gary B. Cohen, “Nationalist politics and the dynamics of state and civil society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1867-1914”, Central European History, 40, 2007, n° 2, p. 241-278, there p. 263.

5 e.g.: Report of the Deputy-Lieutenant of Ugocsa County on 3 September 1886, National Archives of Hungary (hereafter MNL) OL K150-1476-1886-VII-14-15789; see the contributions of the conference of the industrialists on 21 April 1907. A kivándorlás. A Magyar Gyáriparosok Országos Szövetsége által tartott országos ankét tárgyalásai [Emigration. Discussions at the meeting organized by the National Association of Hungarian Industrialists], Budapest, Pesti Lloyd-Társulat ny., 1907; Gusztáv Thirring, A magyarországi kivándorlás és a külföldi magyarság [The Hungarian emigration and the Hungarians abroad], Budapest, Kilián. 1904, p. 5-8.

6 e.g. Hegedüs Loránt, A magyarok kivándorlása Amerikába [Migration of Hungarians to America], Budapest, Különlenyomat a Budapesti Szemléből, 1899, p. 14.

7 Erlass des Ministers des Innern vom 23. Oktober 1852. Z. 25 748 (Verbot der Gründung von Agenturen); Leopold Caro, Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik in Österreich, Leipzig, Duncker&Humblot, 1909, p. 174; The Minister of Interior to the Deputy-Lieutenants concerning the activity of F. Missler, on 21 May 1895, MNL OL K150-2770-1896-VII-14-44556; Monika Korntheuer, Der lange Weg nach Ellis Island. Emigration aus dem österreichischen Teil der Habsburgermonarchie nach den USA um 1900, PhD Thesis, Wien, 2006, p. 66, p. 74.

8 Memorandum of the Police Superintendent of Budapest to the Minister of Interior, on 17 May 1888, MNL OL K150-2621-1895-VII-14-24242.

9 Kun József, Gróf Tisza István képviselőházi beszédei 3 [Speeches in the Chamber of Deputies of Count István Tisza], Budapest, MTA, 1937, p. 543.

10 Hungarian migration via the German ports: 1896-1900: 114 835 and 1900-1905: 365 329. A Magyar Szent Korona országainak kivándorlása…, op. cit. p. 48.

11 In 1901-1902 from the 110 000 migrants from Hungary to the US the proportion of the ethnic Hungarians was 20.9%, the Slovaks 33.6%, the Croats and Serbs 27.3%, the Ruthenians 6.4%, the Jews 5.5%, the Germans 4.5% and the Romanians 0.9% – Gusztáv Thirring, A magyarországi kivándorlás…,op. cit., p. 156.

12 The “old immigration” in the US was characterised by the dominant part of the north-European migrant groups in the first decades of the 19th century. This changed in the second half of the 19th century, when flux from central, south-, and east-European migrants arrived. Cf. Peter Roberts, The New Immigration: A Study of the Industrial and Social Life of Southeastern Europeans in America, New York, Macmillan, 1912, p. 342-343; George M. Stephenson, A History of American Immigration, 1820-1924, Boston, Ginn, 1926, p. 61; Charles Jaret, “Troubled by newcomers: Anti-immigrant attitudes and action during two eras of mass immigration to the United States”, Journal of American Ethnic History, 18, 1999, n° 3, “The classical and contemporary mass migration periods: Similarities and differences”, p. 9-39; Heinz Fassmann, “Europäische Migration im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert”, in Albert Kraler, Karl Husa, Veronika Bilger, Irene Stacher (eds.), Migrationen. Globale Entwicklung seit 1850, Wien, Mandelbaum, 2007, p. 32-53, there p. 41.

13 Cf. Emigration conditions in Europe. Reports of the Immigration Commission, Washington, GPO, 1911, p. 385-387; Mark Wyman, “Return migration – old story, new story”, Immigrants & Minorities: Historical Studies in Ethnicity, Migration and Diaspora, 20, 2001, n° 1, p.1-18.

14 Leopold Lajos, “A visszavándorlás mérlege” [Account of return migration], Huszadik Század, 9, 1908, p. 143-162, there p. 153; Reports of the Immigration Commission. Abstracts of Reports of the Immigration Commission. With Conclusions and Recommendations and Views of the Minority, vol. 1, presented by Mr. Dillingham, December 5, 1910, Washington, Washington Government Printing Office, 1911, p. 13-14; Tibor Glant, Through the Prism of the Habsburg Monarchy: Hungary in American Diplomacy and Public Opinion during the First World War, PhD Thesis, Warwick, 1996, p. 15.

15 See e.g.: Huldah Florence Cook, The Magyars of Cleveland: With a Brief Sketch of their Historical, Political and Social Backgrounds, Cleveland, Cleveland Americanization Committee, 1919, p. 25; Eleanor Edwards Ledbetter, The Slovaks of Cleveland: With Some General Information on the Race, [Cleveland], Americanization Committee, 1918, p. 17-20.

16 Apart from the migration law, a law on the border-guard corps, on the passports and finally on aliens residing in the country constituted a broader framework regulating migration issues. Képviselőházi Napló [Journal of Chamber of Deputies] (KN)1901.X.köt.1902. dec. 13-1903. jan. 21.

17 Kuno Klebelsberg’s résumé about the “American action”, on 20 July 1900, MNL OL K26-661-1906-XXI-854-I

18 Information of the Common Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Interior about the Slovak activity in Hungary and its relationships with the Panslavic propaganda in the US, on 25 July 1902, MNL OL K26-705-1907-XXIV-2573.

19 The Minister of Interior’s information to the counties’ administration and to the police superintendent of Budapest about the Narodný Kalendár, on 27 May 1896, MNL OL K150-2770-1896-VII-14-53011; Tilkovszky Lóránt, Nemzetiségi politika Magyarországon a 20. században [Ethnic policy in Hungary in the 20th century], Debrecen, Csokonai, 1998, p. 13.

20 Report of Austria-Hungary’s Ambassador on 27 April 1903, MNL OL K26-575-1903-XIX-2285; The Prime Minister to Dezső Bánffy, curator of the Hungarian Reformed Church, on 26 November 1903, MNL OL K26-631-1903-XIX-261-4436; Marcus Braun, Immigration Abuses: Glimpses of Hungary and Hungarians: A Narrative of the Experiences of an American Immigrant Inspector while on Duty in Hungary, Together with a Brief Review of that Country’s History and Present Troubles, New York, Pearson Advertising Co., 1906, p. 101.

21 June Granatir Alexander, “The laity in the church: Slovaks and the Catholic Church in pre-World War I Pittsburg”, Church History, 53, 1984, n° 3, p. 363-378., there p. 365 and p. 371.

22 Common Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister on the Catholic Slovaks residing in the US, on 28 December 1901, MNL OL K26-575-1903-XX-4108; Hungarian Prime Minister to the Common Minister for Foreign Affairs on the Panslavic propaganda, on 13 November 1897, Austrian State Archives (hereafter AT-OeSta)/HHStA PA XXXIII 63-87; Report of the Consul to the Ambassador of Austria-Hungary, on 8 August 1903, AT-OeStA/HHStA PA XXXIII 70; Report of the Ambassador of Austria-Hungary to the Common Minister for Foreign Affairs on 27 August 1906, AT-OeStA/HHStA PA XXXIII 80; Emily Greene Balch, Our Slavic Fellow Citizens, New York, Charities Publication Committee, 1910, p. 380-381.

23 See: Stéphane Dufoix, Diasporas, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, 2008, p. 33-34.

24 Der Rückgang des transatlantischen Passagierverkehrs während des Krieges”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 8, 1916, p. 356-359, there p. 356; Gusztáv Thirring, Hungarian Migration…, op. cit., p434.

25 Report of the Ambassador of Austria-Hungary in the US to the Common Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 14 August 1914, AT-OeStA/HHStAMdÄ AR F42-70-1; Amerikai Magyar Népszava (hereafter AMN), 2 August 1914

26 Gusztáv Thirring, Hungarian Migration…, op. cit., p434.

27 Amerikai Magyar Hírlap, 1 July 1915.

28 AMN 11 September 1914.

29 Amerikai Magyarság, 19 August 1915; AMN 6 April 1915.

30 The Common Minister for Foreign Affairs information to the Hungarian Prime Minister on 7 May 1915, MNL OL K26-1041-1915-XXIV-968 – e.g. Hlas 9 December 1914

31 Szarka László, “A szlovák kérdés a magyar kormány nemzetiségpolitikájában, 1906-1918” [The Slovak question in the ethnic minority policy of the Hungarian government, 1906-1918], Történelmi Szemle, 35, 1993, p. 59-77, there p. 61-64; Szarka László, “A modern szlovák nacionalizmus sajátosságai” [Characteristics of the modern Slovak nationalism], in id, A modern szlovák nacionalizmus évszázada, 1780-1918. Párhuzamos nemzetépítés a multietnikus Magyar Királyságban, Budapest, Akadémiai, 2011, p. 27-28; Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, Slovaques et Tchèques, Essai sur un nouvel aperçu de leur histoire politique, Lausanne, L’Âge d’Homme, 1987, p. 172; Tibor Glant, Through the Prism…, op .cit., p. 20-21.

32 Szabadság, 8 March 1915.

33 A háború utáni sürgős teendők a kivándorlás és visszavándorlás tárgyában. A Kivándorlási Tanács Öttagú Bizottságának jelentése. Kivándorlási Tanács Iratai II [Urgent tasks after the war on the domain of migration and return migration], Budapest, Kivándorlási Tanács, 1916; Mailáth József, Élményeim és tapasztalataim a háboru alatt [My experiences during the war] 1-2. köt, Budapest, Akadémiai Társ., 1928, p. 109.

34 Report of the Minister of Finances to the Prime Minister on 8 April 1916, MNL OL K26-1075-1916-XIV-1119

35 Szabadság, 17 December 1917.

36 Presidential proclamation regarding regulation of alien enemies”, in Emerson Hough, The Web, Chicago, Reilly & Lee, 1919, p. 510-511; Frances Kellor, Immigration and the Future, New York, G.H. Doran, 1920, p. 54.

37 See e.g. War Policy for Aliens. Memorandum prepared October, 1917 by the National Americanization Committee, Committee for Immigrants in America. New City York [sic] [National Americanization Committee and Committee for Immigrants in America, 1917]; Puskás Julianna, Kivándorló magyarok az Egyesült Államokban, 1880-1940 [Migrant Hungarians in the United States, 1880-1940], Budapest, Akadémiai, 1982, p. 321; Nicole M. Phelps, “ ‘A status which does not exist anymore’: Austrian and Hungarian enemy aliens in the United States, 1917-1921”, in Günter Bischof, Fritz Plasser, Peter Berger (eds.), From Empire to Republic: Post-World War I Austria, Innsbruck, Innsbruck University Press 2010, p. 90-109, there p. 94-96.

38 Szabadság, 8 December 1917.

39 AMN 17 August 1917; AMN 28 September 1917; Nicole M. Phelps, “ ‘A status which does not exist anymore’…”, op. cit., p. 95.

40 The stance of ethnic minorities in the US vis-à-vis Budapest depended partly on their relationship with the national movements in Hungary or the activity of the neighbouring countries. E.g. after 1916, when Romania entered the war as ally of the Entente, the ethnic Romanian migrants’ situation in the US became even more complex. A report informed Budapest that this community split to pro-Austro-Hungarian and pro-Romanian groups. Report of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy in the US on 21 February 1917, MNL OL K26-1112-1917-XII.res-317.

41 John Palmer Gavit, Americans by Choice, New York, Harper&Bros, 1922, p. 255-260.

42 Puskás Júlia, “Magyar szervezetek Amerikában (az 1880-as évektől az 1960-as évekig)” [Hungarian organisations in the US, from the 1880s’ to the 1960s’], Történelmi Szemle, 13, 1970, p. 537-538.

43 See Americanization as a war measure. Report of a conference called by the Secretary of the Interior, and held in Washington, April 3, 1918, Washington, G.P.O., 1918, p. 18-19; Edward Hale Bierstadt, Aspects of Americanization, Cincinnati, Stewart Kidd, 1922, p. 54-55; David Montgomery, “Nacionalizmus, amerikai patriotizmus és osztálytudat a bevándorolt munkások között az Egyesült Államokban az első világháború időszakában” [Nationalism, American patriotism and class consciousness among immigrant workers in the United States in the epoch of World War I], Történelmi Szemle, 26, 1983, p. 264-265.

44 Szabadság 29 January 1918; Leara D. Rhodes, The Ethnic Press: Shaping the American Dream, New York, Peter Lang, 2000, p. 61.

45 Alan Axelrod, Selling the Great War: The Making of American Propaganda, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, p. 186; Robert Jackall, Janice M. Hirota, Image Makers. Advertising. Public Relations and the Ethos of Advocacy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 243.

46 Szabadság, 27 February 1918; Ludwig Ernő, “Az amerikai magyarság és a világháború” [American Hungarians and the World War], Új Magyar Szemle, 1921, n° 2, p. 140-153, there p. 143.

47 It led finally to the resignation of the League’s founder, Sándor Konta from his post in the League, AMN 27 September 1918; Pivány Jenő, Egy amerikai kiküldetés története [History of a mission to the US], Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség, 1943, p. 37; Tibor Glant, Through the prism…, op. cit., p. 198-200.

48 Puskás Julianna, Kivándorló magyarok…, op. cit., p. 321.

49 The leading figures of the Reformed Church had been received by the president in the summer of 1918. AMN 8 July 1918; Memorandum of the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education to the Prime Minister on 26 November 1918, MNL OL K26-1186-1918-XXI-5736.

50 Csóti Csaba, Menekültkérdés Magyarországon, 1916-1924 között [The refugees’ question in Hungary between 1916 and 1924], in Püski Levente, Valuch Tibor (eds.), Mérlegen a XX. századi magyar történelem – értelmezések és értékelések, Debrecen, 1956- os Intézet/Debreceni Egyetem Történeti Intézet Új- és Legújabbkori Magyar Történelmi Tanszéke, 2002, p. 141-146, there p. 144; Zeidler Miklós, A trianoni békeszerződés és Magyarország. Kihívások és válaszok [The peace treaty of Trianon and Hungary. Challenges and responses], in Tanulmányok Gergely Jenő (ed.), Fejezetek az új- és jelenkori magyar történelemből, Budapest, L’Harmattan, 2006, p. 157-258, there p. 163-164.

51 Petition of women from Felsőkézsmárk to the Minister of Interior on 6 March 1919, MNL OL K70-14-1919-B-8-30883.

52 D.g. AMN 3 May 1919; 27 June 1919.

53 Ságvári Ágnes, “Diplomáciai iratok 1920-ból, Kun Béla kijuttatásáról Ausztriából Szovjetoroszországba” [Diplomatic documents from 1920, ghosting Béla Kun out of Austria to Soviet-Russia], Századok, 102, 1963, p. 562-587, there p. 567-568; Christoph Stamm, “Der Béla-Kun-Zwischenfall im Juli 1920 und die deutsch-sowjetischen Beziehungen”, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge 31, 1983, n° 3, p. 365-385, there p. 365.

54 Szabadság 14 March 1919; AMN 25 November 1919, Amerikai Magyar Hírlap 23 December 1920.

55 Memorandum of the Minister’s Commissioner to the Prime Minister on 30 October 1919, MNL OL K26-1210-1919-XVIII-23

56 Proposal to the government’s session on 22 March 1921, MNL OL K150-3609-1920-V-20-74147

57 William A. Berridge, “Cycles of Employment and Unemployment in the United States, 1914-1921”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 18, March 1922, n° 137, p. 42-55, there p. 45-47; William A. Berridge, “Cycles of Employment and Unemployment in the United States, 1903-1914”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 18, June 1922, n° 138, p. 227-240, there p. 232.

58 Memorandum of the Hungarian migration commissioner in Naples on 13 March 1921, MNL OL K69-65-1921-14/I-38897

59 Budapesti Hírlap 24 February 1920; Zeidler Miklós, “Társadalom és gazdaság Trianon után” [Society and economy after Trianon], Limes, 2002, n° 2, p. 5-54, there p. 9.

60 Report of the Hungarian Consulate in Hamburg on 31 January 1921, MNL OL K69-65-1921-14/I-97335; Prohibition of immigration. Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-fifth Congress, third session, on H.R. 13325, 13669, 13904, and 14577. Part 1. Statements of Louis Marshall, John B. Densmore, Fiorello. H. Laguardia, Washington,G.P.O., 1919, p. 1-33, there p. 6-7, 11.

61 Warner A. Parker, “The quota provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924”, The American Journal of International Law, 18, 1924, p. 737-754, there p. 739; Report of the Hungarian Ambassador on 19 June 1923, MNL OL K106-79-1915-1924-42-982; MNL OL K106-79-1915-1924-42-2436; Jay Dolmage, “Disabled upon arrival: The rhetorical construction of disability and race at Ellis Island”, Cultural Critique, 77, Winter 2011, p. 24-69, there p. 50-51.

62 Report of the Hungarian Consulate in Hamburg to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 June 1921 - MNL OL K69-65-1921-14/I-97335

63 Gusztáv Thirring, Hungarian Migration…, op. cit., p. 438.

64 Report of the Chargé d’affaires to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 25 September 1922, MNL OL K64-5-1922-10-174; Zeidler Miklós, “Társadalom és gazdaság…” [Society and economy after Trianon], art. cit., p. 7.

65 The Prime Minister concerning the budget of the Hungarian governmental activities abroad on 22 December 191, MNL OL K26-1174-1918-XIV-273.

66 Report of the Hungarian Consul-General in New York on 14 February 1927, MNL OL K28-168-1927-226; Bangha Béla, Amerikai missziós körutam. Úti Feljegyzések [My mission tour in America, journey notes], Budapest, Különlenyomat a Magyar Kultúrából, 1923, p. 23.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Balázs Pálvölgyi, « Hungarian migrant communities decoupling from the old country in the United States (1900-1920s) », Diasporas, 31 | 2018, 51-64.

Référence électronique

Balázs Pálvölgyi, « Hungarian migrant communities decoupling from the old country in the United States (1900-1920s) », Diasporas [En ligne], 31 | 2018, mis en ligne le 21 août 2018, consulté le 24 octobre 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/diasporas/1113 ; DOI : 10.4000/diasporas.1113

Haut de page

Auteur

Balázs Pálvölgyi

Balázs Pálvölgyi (1973) is associate professor, University Széchenyi István, Győr, Hungary.

Balázs Pálvölgyi (né en 1973) est maître de conférences à l’université Széchenyi István de Győr (Hongrie).

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Diasporas – Circulations, migrations, histoire est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo Presses universitaires du Midi
  • Logo Framespa
  • Logo CNRS - Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
  • OpenEdition Journals