Apparently, Ellen Pierce’s parents finally made up their mind on the basis of what they heard from one of the informant’s uncles who was paying a visit home. Ellen’s uncle, in fact, emphasized the better economic conditions and greater education opportunities in the U.S., and affirmed that children would not have to work in America (Nota 80).
Some of the interviewees actually selected an alternative overseas destination, namely Canada, before moving to the United States. A variety a motives lay behind this choice: along with the key role played by emigration agents in conducting sustained publicity campaigns, the most important were the fact that Canada, besides not being further away than the U.S., was part of the “British” world and at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries offered better chances of land ownership (Nota 81). Only after a period there did the informants decide to continue their journey south of the border. Unfortunately, the testimonies rarely clarify why they did so, the most likely reasons being dissatisfaction at their conditions in Canada, the lure of America and the existence of family connections there. In 1856 Alex Russell’s family left Scotland for Ontario, and “Dad” Rydell had also opted for Canada first (Nota 82). In 1888 Mrs Whittington’s family chose Quebec, only to settle in Vermont the following year; likewise, Henry Safford, aged 18 when he left England in 1885, stayed in Canada about a year before proceeding south to the United States. Apparently, he had initially moved to British North America because a friend of his had extolled the virtues of Canada (Nota 83).
As the foregoing demonstrates, most British emigrants carefully pondered over their decision to leave. Equally rational was the way in which they actuated the process of relocation overseas. The following section illustrates that this was arranged so as to minimize risks for the members of the family moving abroad and guarantee the economic security of those left behind.

Patterns of emigration

The FWP and Ellis Island oral histories reveal only a small difference in the emigration patterns followed in the final decades of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth. As we shall see, examples of family emigration are slightly more numerous in the FWP life histories, which also deal with the pre-1900 period, while the Ellis Island accounts only concern the post-1900 emigration phase. Actually, while in the middle of the nineteenth century it was still more common for family parties to leave together for America, later on emigration increasingly became an individual venture (Nota 84). This does not mean, of course, that emigrants usually travelled alone. Indeed, whenever it was possible to do so, they chose to face the difficulties of the journey with relatives, for obvious reasons (i.e., to receive practical and emotional support). And when they were not accompanied by relatives they shared the pleasures (if any) and pains of the trip with friends or acquaintances, as was the case with Kyffin Williams and Robert Reese, for instance (Nota 85).
Though there were several variations in the pattern, it was normally young adults, males more often than females, who departed first and then brought other members of the family over – their wife and children in the case of married men, their siblings as well as, sometimes, their parents in the case of emigrants who were single –, after having secured an adequate means of livelihood, found a house for them to stay and saved enough money to (partly) meet the travel expenses of those who had remained in Britain. In other words, if the move had been successful emigrants were joined by (the) other members of their family, gradually or by all of them together. Indeed, as Eric Richards remarks, using savings to send out young and healthy migrants who would then remit cash to pay for the passage of their relatives is a classic strategy of proletarian emigration (Nota 86). The remittances newcomers sent home served various purposes (Nota 87). They were used to support the emigrants’ family in the Old Country, to finance the journey of their relatives, and to pay back the money that had been pooled to enable them to move overseas (Nota 88). For instance, Archibald Webster’s father, who left England in the early 1920s, sent his family twenty dollars a week. Jack Carnegie also remitted cash to his relatives in Scotland, while Robert Reese gradually returned his parents the money they had lent him before departure (Nota 89). Adult emigrants who did not move with their family were able to send remittances home also because they stayed with relatives or lived as boarders in America, which made it possible to cut expenses. This is the case with Myrtle Berlinghoff’s father, for instance, who only rented a room in the U.S. in order to transfer money home (Nota 90). Emigrant families evidently functioned as rational units carefully managing resources to attain their objectives. Indeed, as scholars have conclusively proved, it was usually the family, rather than the individual migrant, that made decisions in its economic interest (Nota 91).
Young married men typically moved first, as we have noted, followed by their wives and children. This was the case, for example, with Archibald Webster’s father (Nota 92). Likewise, Frances Oakley’s father came out, leaving his little daughter and pregnant wife at home. Only after delivery did his wife, daughter and new-born baby join him in America (Nota 93). In a similar situation, Jennie Jacobson’s father acted differently. Once again, understandably, childbirth at home seemed a wiser choice. Yet he decided to emigrate with his children, leaving only his pregnant wife behind. There must have been a good reason for this, which unfortunately the interview does not explain (perhaps his wife did not live close enough to relatives in Britain who could help her taking care of the children, or there was somebody in America who could do so more easily). A few months later the informant’s mother and the newborn baby reunited with the remainder of the family across the ocean (Nota 94). Finally, Ann Nelson’s father left for America with two of the informant’s aunts. The reason for their move, as Nelson clearly and concisely states, was «to get a job and establish a home for us. So they came those few months before we did» (Nota 95).
When parents had passed the prime of life it was the older brothers and/or sisters who led the way, often in the company of other siblings. Thomas Muir, for example, departed when he was 18 with his older brother (Nota 96), while Henry Cohen, who was only fifteen at the time of leaving, moved with his twelve-year old brother (Nota 97). Henry Safford travelled unaccompanied at 17 years of age: on his shoulders rested the responsibility of emigration, since his father had died and he was the oldest child in the family (Nota 98). Sometimes it was the older daughters who emigrated first, as in the cases of Patrick Peak’s sister and John Daly’s eldest sister, who was joined by her family as soon as a job was found for the household head (Nota 99).
The wife and young children of an emigrant travelled together when the time came to join the breadwinner overseas, as the above-mentioned examples of Archibald Webster’s and Frances Oakley’s families illustrate. When it was the older siblings that moved first the pattern of emigration was often more gradual: over time, they would bring some or all of their brothers and sisters to America, and in some cases they were also eventually joined by their parents. Gradualness was particularly appropriate when those left behind were numerous. Cyril Cheeseman’s father was in his fifties and had to take care of a large family when he considered emigration. As expected, the older children were sent to America first. Then, whenever it was possible, one of them returned home to accompany some of the other siblings across the ocean. Step by step the whole family relocated overseas, the last move being made by the middle-aged parents accompanying the youngest children (Nota 100).
As the foregoing has illustrated, in the period under examination the typical mechanism of chain migration essentially consisted in the successive departure of different members of the same family (sometimes all of them), obtained through a rational employment of financial resources and the effective exploitation of personal networks. The following excerpt from Marian Matthews’s testimony, which provides a paradigmatic example of chain migration, is worth quoting at length. This passage also shows that the process of chain migration did not exclusively concern blood relations but could also involve in-laws, future in-laws as well as in-laws’ relatives:

That goes way back to a cousin of my mother’s and she came out as a young girl, married and did rather well and she used to come back and visit. And one year she asked my oldest brother, would he like to come to America and of course he stayed with her. And he jumped, and he came. Then the following – he worked and then the following year he sent for my second oldest brother and [...] the girl that he was to marry, Gwenna, they came out and Gwenna took care of the two men. My brother was married. They got married out here and then she took care of the house. Then the next year they sent for my father, my brother, Cyril and my sister-in-law’s brother, Oliver, and they three came out. So she had all of them to take care of. The following year they sent for my mother and Doris and I, and that’s how we all got here (Nota 101).

Despite common patterns of relocation being generally adopted, the FWP and Ellis Island interviews also reveal that there were a number of possible variations on the theme, connected to the specific circumstances of the emigrants’ life.
To begin with, the overwhelming evidence of small-group or individually-led emigration notwithstanding, the interviews provide various examples of entire families travelling together. The fact that emigrants could rely on personal networks abroad made the simultaneous relocation of many people a viable, though riskier, move. This strategy of emigration appears to have been adopted more frequently by the FWP informants and their families than by the Ellis island interviewees. This may be due to the fact that, in the post-Civil War decades, the frontier was still significantly expanding in America, which made it comparatively easy to take up farming (a family, rather than individual, enterprise). Indeed, after the end of the conflict large areas were opened to settlement in Kansas, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, the Pacific Northwest and, finally, Oklahoma. By 1890 «three million farms had been added to the million and a half that had existed at mid-century» (Nota 102). Furthermore, the restructuring of the work process and the implementation of new efficiency schemes in the American manufacturing system – with the consequent blurring of skill distinctions and the reduction in the number of skilled jobs available (Nota 103) – as well as the effects of the Great Migration still lay ahead or were just in their early stages when many of the FWP informants emigrated (Nota 104). This meant that the American job market was not oversupplied with labour and British emigrants did not have to face the competition of large numbers of immigrants, while having more chances of taking advantage of their skills (Nota 105). Consequently, compared to the twentieth century, it was easier and quicker for Britons to find a (possibly good-paying) job, which made the relocation of entire families a less hazardous move. Sidney Domoney and Sam Congram, for example, emigrated with both of their parents in 1871 and 1870, at the age of 7 and 14 respectively (Nota 106). The emigrant family might include adult sons and daughters: William Platt, for instance, recalls having moved in 1873 with his parents when he was eighteen years old (Nota 107). Examples of entire families moving together, however, are also to be found in the Ellis Island corpus of interviews, as shown by the testimonies of Arthur Dickson, Ken Johnson and Thomas Powell, who at the time of emigration were children travelling with both of their parents (Nota 108).
Though it was usually young people in their prime of life who emigrated, or at least who emigrated first, as we have seen, this was not always the case. In fact, Doreen Stenzel’s father and grandfather (who was in his fifties) moved together, only to be joined later on by Doreen’s mother, grandmother and the informant herself. Three generations were thus involved in this process of relocation (Nota 109). Elsie Hockridge’s grandparents on her father’s side must have also been in their late forties or early fifties when they emigrated with three of their adult children. The informant’s father came out some time later with Elsie’s sister, the plan being that Elsie (who was an infant at the time) and her mother would follow them shortly. Sadly, in the meanwhile Elsie’s mother died and thus her grandmother had to return to England to pick her up (Nota 110).
Further examples of leavers who did not follow the standard pattern of emigration are offered by the testimony of Arnold Ambler, Thomas Allan, Sidney Pike and William McGuire. Arnold Amber and his wife were a young childless couple who moved together, while Thomas Allan left at a young age with one of his siblings (on the ship, they were looked after by family acquaintances, who functioned as surrogate parents) (Nota 111). Sidney Pike and his brother Arthur were also two young children when they left (Sidney was 11, and his brother must not have been much older), but apparently travelled alone, unsurprisingly putting their personal safety at risk. In fact, as the informant remembers, among other things they «used to hang over the edge of the ship, very dangerous» (Nota 112). The emigration strategy adopted by William McGuire’s parents was also rather unusual (unfortunately, no explanation is offered in the interview as to their behaviour). The male breadwinner moved first, followed after some time by his wife, while the children were left in the care of grandparents. Eventually, the informant’s mother returned home to pick up the children and bring them to America (Nota 113).
Finally, it is worth noting that the interval elapsing between the departure of the first member(s) of a family and the eventual reunion with those who had stayed home could vary significantly. As the examples given above have shown, it might take emigrants only a few months to bring the remainder of the family over. Robert Williams’s brother was also joined by the other members of his family after only six months abroad (Nota 114), and Thomas Sargent’s father sent for his family as soon as he got a job (actually, he had made reservations for his wife and children’s journey before leaving) (Nota 115). However, in some cases emigrants lived apart from their kin for quite a long time. Doreen Stenzel’s family, for instance, had to wait two and a half years to be reunited, and many years passed before Donald Roberts’s father was able to meet with his family again (Nota 116). The case of John Flint is also worth mentioning, though it was obviously extreme. In fact, Flint reunited with his father after a separation lasting almost nine years, crossing the ocean with his aunt and uncle, since his mother had died just before the trip and was thus never able to join her husband overseas (Nota 117).

Conclusions

As we have seen, the FWP and Ellis Island testimonies illuminate many aspects of the initial phase of Britons’ relocation to America in the Great Migration age.
The main pattern of emigration – young married men or older siblings leaving first, joined later by the other members of the family – emerges clearly from the accounts, along with several possible variations. Furthermore, the interviews prove that no single explanation can be given for such a complex phenomenon as emigration, and that the reasons Britons had for moving were many and included structural as well as personal factors. The testimonies also clarify that the pull of America played an important role in the emigrants’ process of decision making, and that this pull was based on a core image of the United States as the land of opportunities. Though some emigrants held distorted expectations about life in the New World – typically predicated on the streets-paved-with-gold myth – many cultivated a more restrained dream based on the conviction that America was a better place to live and raise children than Great Britain. Social and political equality, in particular the perceived absence of status hierarchies, were elements some emigrants considered, but their significance should not be overstated. However, the significance of pull factors notwithstanding, the FWP and Ellis Island oral histories reveal that the difficult economic conditions and bleak prospects of emigrants at home were the prime motive in prompting departure; in short, they usually provided the necessary, though not sufficient, grounds for leaving. This indicates that push and pull factors affected British departures differently in the Great Migration Age compared with the antebellum period.
The first three volumes of William Van Vugt’s recent collection of materials on British emigration to the United States – mostly letters and biographical sketches – show that it was essentially the magnetic force of America that prompted emigration from Britain before the Civil War (volumes I-III cover the 1776-1859 period, while volume IV is meant to take the discussion to 1914). In the 1830s and 1840s, Van Vugt admits, rural poor people numbered among those who left, and small British villages were hit by the disruptive transformations accompanying the industrial revolution. Yet skilled pre-industrial craftsmen such as miners, quarrymen, woodworkers and building trade workers filled the ranks of British emigrants. These craftsmen, along with skilled industrial workers employed in iron and textile industries, went to America «not so much because of distress but to take opportunities. They emigrated in unusually high proportions at a time when they were generally in demand in Britain and not seriously threatened by industrial change and unemployment. If anything, their future in Britain seemed brighter than ever before, and yet they were choosing that time to go to America. Furthermore, large proportions (more than three quarters in 1831) of these migrants travelled as families and could afford multiple passage tickets [...] (Nota 118)». Likewise, from 1848 to 1859 pull factors predominated. The motives pre-industrial craftsmen and iron and steel workers had for leaving were similar to those they had in the previous decades. As for farmers, a number of them could buy land upon arrival and most could afford multiple passage tickets to the New World. Indeed, Van Vugt remarks, «[e]ven some of the most troubled farmers and farm labourers were influenced as much or more by the “pull” of American promises than the “push” of British problems (Nota 119)». Furthermore, at mid-century more and more British merchants, “gentlemen” and professionals (such as clerks, lawyers, doctors and teachers) left for America. Apart from the mention of professionals, which specifically concerns emigration at mid-century, the basic character of British emigration from the 1820s through the 1850s is described by Van Vugt in the following passage:

Taking all occupations together, the rising numbers of British immigrants to the United States during the period did not have much to do with technological displacement, cyclical unemployment or other difficulties associated with industrialization. Unemployed textile workers or foundry workers were relatively rare among the immigrants. Mechanics, engineers, craftsmen, miners and farmers, who were in some demand in Britain, swelled the numbers. Comparatively large numbers of professionals joined them as well, mainly to take up opportunities that were even greater than the ones they were enjoying in Britain. Because they came from the world’s most advanced economy, and had many opportunities to take in America, British immigrants were disproportionately skilled. [...] Of course, poor people were among the immigrants, as were persons who thought Britain did not offer a good future. But even among them the promise of America was often more important than the uncertainty in Britain in their migration decision. The prospect of owning land was especially powerful (Nota 120).

Admittedly, the documents on which Van Vugt bases his conclusions are not representative. In fact, as Eric Richards observes, the materials selected do not cover the lowest echelons of British society. Besides, the use of a large amount of county history biographies appears to be “dubious”, since these «were retrospective celebratory portraits of immigrants, formulaic Smilesian models of dedicated, blameless, and pious lives of enterprising settlers, not a black sheep among them» (Nota 121). Therefore, it is likely that a more balanced choice of sources would have shown the push factor to be more important in prompting British emigration than Van Vugt is ready to acknowledge. Nevertheless, the claim that immigrants were more pulled than pushed, or at least pulled as much as pushed, in the antebellum era is a sensible one. The U.S. open and moving frontier offered an abundance of relatively cheap lands, and plenty of opportunities were available overseas to pre-industrial skilled workers as well as to men who could put their skills to good use in the American developing industrial system. Above all, this was still the era of the sailing ship, when journeys across the Atlantic were long, arduous and perilous. The nature of the trip and the fact that farming was a collective rather than an individual enterprise made emigration overseas mostly a family business in this period, and a far from easy step to take. Indeed, many of the workers who were the victims of technological dislocation or became unemployed due to economic recessions tended to move to British cities rather than cross the ocean, because the latter was not a prudent choice to make and was rarely a financially viable option.
Unfortunately, Van Vugt’s portrait of British emigration from the outbreak of the American Civil War to World War I does not basically differ from the one he provides for the antebellum era, despite the profound social and economic transformations which occurred in the New World. In fact, as the century drew to a close, less and less land was available for purchase in the United States (the age of the American frontier was gradually ending), there were far fewer openings for pre-industrial skilled workers and more limited opportunities were also offered to skilled industrial workers. Indeed, the fast developing American manufacturing system required and absorbed more and more unskilled and semi-skilled labourers. Above all, as we shall see below, a great difference in determining the nature of emigration flows was made by the revolution in transatlantic transport, which Van Vugt does not take into due consideration. Actually, he emphasizes the continuities with the preceding period, dwelling upon the departures of skilled workers and the persistence of the emigrants’ agricultural dream. The waves of British emigrants, he states, «had mostly to do with increases in American economic activity, not the decline of British. The pull was stronger than the push» (Nota 122). One of the reasons that might explain this interpretation is that, despite the chronological interval indicated in the title (1860-1914), the last volume of Van Vugt’s work includes only a few documents produced in the 1890s and almost none in the twentieth century, the story essentially stopping at the onset of the Great Migration age. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the representativeness of the materials selected by Van Vugt appears to be questionable. The immigrants’ biographies are taken from a rather limited number of county histories and, what is more, often concern emigrants who were already well-off before departure or far from indigent skilled workers (Nota 123). Obviously, in their case, it was the pull of America that prompted departure rather than grim economic conditions at home, and this must have affected Van Vugt’s reading of the relative importance of push and pull emigration factors in the last decades of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth (Nota 124). Only a few of the emigrants whose life is presented in the book were poor when they left Britain (Nota 125), while in other cases the biographies do not clarify to which social class they belonged, or what were their financial conditions at the time of leaving. In short, it seems to be clear that county history biographies downplay the role of push factors and that, based on them, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions on the push-pull dynamics of British emigration. As for the letters included in the volume, they do not support the editor’s view or any other definite assertions on this subject.
As we have seen, in contrast to what Van Vugt affirms, the FWP and Ellis Island interviews reveal the importance of push factors – a necessary though usually not sufficient condition – in determining British workers’ emigration. This is consistent with the revolution in transatlantic communications that occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century. In fact, by 1870 almost all passengers leaving from English ports embarked on steamships. This significantly shortened journeys, which in turn made emigration cheaper (despite ship tickets were more expensive) because workers lost wages for a much shorter time than in the past. The revolution in transatlantic transport made it possible for single individuals rather than entire families to cross the ocean, enabling virtually everyone but the destitute to find the money for the trip. In other words, those who in the antebellum period emigrated to urban centres or different regions of Britain could now afford to cross the Atlantic.
The FWP and Ellis Island interviews also show that personal networks aided potential emigrants to make a final decision about departure and to actualize their move.
With regard to the dynamics of emigration, scholars have long recognized the centrality of the web of connections which link people together, and have described the different types of networks and the role they perform. Many kinds of networks (sometimes overlapping) can be identified, ranging from family, kinship or friendship connections to workplace, associational, religious, business or political networks. Interestingly, scholars have distinguished between sending and receiving networks (linkages among people at a given point of origin and connections at destination respectively), and between informal and formal networks (the former involving family, friends and acquaintances, the latter formal institutions such as emigration agencies, clubs, societies and associations). Above all, researchers have examined the role played by networks in the various phases of emigration. Networks, it has been noted, are essential in supplying information about the host country to potential emigrants, and thus in encouraging or discouraging departures, as well as in solving practical problems connected to the move. Moreover, they offer the crucial financial assistance and emotional support necessary to tackle emigration. Once emigrants reach the country of destination networks provide opportunities for employment and supply newcomers initial accommodation or help them to find a home (Nota 126).
In the period under examination, it was informal networks made up of kith and kin that usually supplied information and financial resources to emigrants and assisted them with the search for accommodation and employment once they arrived in the United States. Indeed, what appears to be clear is that «informal personal networks are of crucial significance during the short-term process of leaving one society and settling into another. The durability of these networks over time is, however, open to question» (Nota 127). As we have seen, The FWP and Ellis Island testimonies confirm that emigrants normally relied upon informal personal networks in both the phase preceding emigration and during the ocean trip. The networks exploited by British emigrants provided practical, financial and emotional support to those who were considering emigration or had been left behind, along with vital information about the New World (especially about the availability of work, but also about the character and customs of the new country, subjects which were discussed by returning migrants as well). The process of decision-making was clearly affected by the flow of letters and remitted money from the other side of the Atlantic, which was the most visible sign of an operating transnational connection between people living on different sides of the ocean. Actually, many opted for emigration because they would find familiar faces overseas and they knew they would receive help after arrival. Furthermore, when it came to make arrangements for the ocean trip, Britons relied on personal connections at the point of origin (sending networks). Indeed, as has been noted, emigrants usually travelled with relatives or friends. Sending networks thus helped emigrants confront the practical and emotional trials of the ocean journey and arrival in the new country. In the case of emigrants directed to the United States this involved, from 1892, the feared passage through Ellis Island, where newcomers would have to face the questioning of immigration officials and would be subjected to a thorough physical examination.
The exploitation of personal networks before departure and during the trip (as well as in the process of settling abroad, a subject which is outside the remit of this article) provides clear evidence that emigration was a conscious choice and a planned move for most Britons. The move, as we have seen, was arranged so as to reduce risks to a minimum and increase the emigrants’ chances of success. In turn, on the emigrants’ success rested the economic security and future destiny of those left behind. The foregoing, therefore, testifies to a significant measure of agency on the part of leavers as well as, paradoxical though it may seem, of the people who remained home. This, of course, does not entail denying the conditioning of structural forces on the life of emigrants and the choices they made. However, as Ewa Moraska has pointed out, even though emigrants cannot escape the constraints of social forces, they often find ways to “play” within structures (Nota 128).

NOTE: