Padrone system

Last updated

The padrone system was a contract labor system utilized by many immigrant groups to find employment in the United States, most notably Italian, but also Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, and Mexican Americans. [1] The word 'padrone' is an Italian word meaning 'boss', 'manager' or 'owner' when translated into English. The system was a complex network of business relationships formed to meet a growing need for skilled and unskilled workers. [2] Padrones were labor brokers, usually immigrants or first-generation Americans themselves, who acted as middlemen between immigrant workers and employers. [3] [4]

Contents

Transoceanic travel became more efficient and less expensive due to introduction of the steamship in the 1860s. This made enticements by labor agents attractive to individuals who were looking for better wages, but did not want to make the United States their permanent home. [5] In the U.S., these 'birds of passage' were employed in growth areas nationwide where the local labor force was too small. They worked for mining and railroad companies and agribusinesses, dug canals, and raised livestock.

The Padrone Act of 1874 was an attempt to ban the system. [6] and by the late 19th century and early 20th century, both the government and the Italian immigrant community struggled to fight the system. The government enacted laws, and the Italian immigrant community by organizing movements. The system was virtually extinct by 1930. [7] The First World War interrupting the flow of immigrants from Europe also contributed to finally abolishing the system.

Negative and positive images

Harney reexamines the negative image of the padrone system, in which immigrants are viewed practically as powerless slaves. This image relies on the assumption that the immigrants, especially men from southern Italy, were too stupid to understand what was happening and too ignorant to learn from the many immigrants who had already returned to their village. In reality, Harney argues, padrones were both exploiters and helpful patrons of the immigrants. They provided jobs the immigrants would not otherwise find. They provided housing, food, and transportation to the highest paying jobs available the padrone could discover. They were the spokesmen and advocates for the immigrants versus the police and local authorities and prevented them from being exploited by the company that hired them. Padrones served as the cultural link to Italy. They facilitated letters, the sending of money back to the families, and arranging transportation back when the term of employment was over. The padrone was paid for his services, taking money both from the immigrant and from the employer. Complaints that some took too much money led to criticism for "exploitation." [8]

According to historian Alfred T. Banfield:

Criticized by many as slave traders who preyed upon poor, bewildered peasants, the 'padroni' often served as travel agents, with fees reimbursed from paychecks, as landlords who rented out shacks and boxcars, and as storekeepers who extended exorbitant credit to their Italian laborer clientele. Despite such abuse, not all 'padroni' were dastardly and most Italian immigrants reached out to their 'padroni' for economic salvation, considering them either as godsends or necessary evils. The Italians whom the 'padroni' brought to Maine generally had no intention of settling there, and most were sojourners who either returned to Italy or moved on to another job somewhere else. Nevertheless, thousands of Italians did settle in Maine, creating "Little Italies" in Portland, Millinocket, Rumford, and other towns where the 'padroni' remained as strong shaping forces in the new communities. [9]

Celso Caesar Moreno was an international adventurer of Italian origin. In 1886, he fought the padrone system persuading Congressman Henry B. Lovering of Massachusetts to introduce a bill to ban importation of slave contract labor from Italy into the United States. [10] On October 29, 1895, Moreno was condemned for libel against Italian minister to the United States, Baron Saverio Fava, whom he had accused of corruption. [11]

Sources of padrone income

Collecting payments for transportation was just one of the methods padrones used to augment their income. Sometimes families would contract or sell their sons into servitude to a padrone. The terms of the contract ranged from a sum paid to the parents to exchanging passage for labor. [12] Immigrant workers were also charged a fee for initial job placements, and often had to pay a monthly fee in order to keep the position. [13] Pozetta shows that in Florida, railroads allowed padrones to run the commissaries at job sites, and there were complaints that they charged a 50 to 100% markup. However, he concludes, the padrone system, with its faults, on the whole was a success. Pozetta says:

The padrone served the needs of American employers such as the Florida East Coast Railway and immigrant newcomers by acting as a middle man. Native businessmen rarely understood the old world traditions, customs, and languages of foreign workers and, hence, found it difficult or impossible to deal with them directly. This was particularly true of employers, such as those in Florida, who were away from the immigrant-filled cities of the North. Similarly, these newcomers often were ignorant of American employment practices and economic trends. For the most part they lacked contacts with native firms, and few possessed the language skills necessary to acquire them. Labor agents [padrones] were normally foreigners themselves who had acquired some use of English and who had made connections with American contractors. As such they were in a position to act as intermediaries between the country's burgeoning economy and the immigrant masses. [14]

Corporate predecessors of padrones

The American Emigrant Company (AEC) was established in 1864 to take advantage of the “act to encourage immigration” passed by Congress that same year. Its mission was to transport skilled and unskilled workers from Europe directly to North American companies suffering labor shortages. Potential candidates found the length of service required, at least a year, unappealing; only a few thousand workers ever contracted with the company. Additionally, individuals who accepted employment through AEC frequently abandoned their positions at the first opportunity to do so. By 1870, the American Emigrant Company was bankrupt.

A group of Chinese merchants, known as the Six Companies, oversaw the emigration of 180,000 Chinese immigrants to the American Northwest between 1849 and 1882 from its base in San Francisco, California. The Chinese organization did not sign contracts until after arrival stateside; it preferred a credit-ticket system. Under the auspices of a company agent, immigrants then entered contracts with American corporations that not only specified length of employment but which also allowed for garnishment of wages to reimburse the Six Companies for ship tickets and other expenditures.

Although recognized as hard workers, Chinese immigrants had to frequently go on strike to protest low wages and physical abuse. In contrast, the presence of Chinese workers or rumors of their imminent arrival on a job site spurred white laborers to join unions and refuse membership to the Chinese. White workers also exerted pressure on the government to oust Chinese from the country. While demands to deport all Chinese were unsuccessful, the United States Congress compromised with passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. [15]

Immigration and naturalization policies: 1864–1929

While immigrant contract labor was promoted by the United States government in 1864, laws were passed to prohibit contract labor. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in the 1880s to end Chinese immigration.

Notable padrones

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chinese Exclusion Act</span> American federal law enacted in 1882

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law made exceptions for merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major US law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States, and therefore helped shape twentieth-century race-based immigration policy.

The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 was an informal agreement between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan whereby Japan would not allow laborers further emigration to the United States and the United States would not impose restrictions on Japanese immigrants already present in the country. The goal was to reduce tensions between the two Pacific nations such as those that followed the Pacific Coast race riots of 1907 and the segregation of Japanese students in public schools. The agreement was not a treaty and so was not voted on by the United States Congress. It was superseded by the Immigration Act of 1924.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965</span> American immigration law

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart–Celler Act and more recently as the 1965 Immigration Act, was a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been the basis of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s. The act formally removed de facto discrimination against Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as Asians, in addition to other non-Western and Northern European ethnicities from the immigration policy of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1924</span> 1924 United States anti-immigration law

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act, was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia and set quotas on the number of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. It also authorized the creation of the country's first formal border control service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and established a "consular control system" that allowed entry only to those who first obtained a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Wetback</span> 1950s U.S. immigration law enforcement initiative

Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, a retired United States Army lieutenant general and head of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The program was implemented in June 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell. The short-lived operation used military-style tactics to remove Mexican immigrants—some of them American citizens—from the United States. Though millions of Mexicans had legally entered the country through joint immigration programs in the first half of the 20th century and some who were naturalized citizens who were once native, Operation Wetback was designed to send them to Mexico.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geary Act</span> US law of 1892 that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 with new requirements

The Geary Act was a United States law that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 by adding onerous new requirements. It was written by California Representative Thomas J. Geary and was passed by Congress on May 5, 1892. The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year of hard labor. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952</span> American immigration law

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, codified under Title 8 of the United States Code, governs immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It came into effect on June 27, 1952. The legislation consolidated various immigration laws into a single text. Officially titled the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is often referred to as the 1952 law to distinguish it from the 1965 legislation. This law increased the quota for Europeans outside Northern and Western Europe, gave the Department of State authority to reject entries affecting native wages, eliminated 1880s bans on contract labor, set a minimum quota of one hundred visas per country, and promoted family reunification by exempting citizens' children and spouses from numerical caps.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1917</span> United States law

The Immigration Act of 1917 was a United States Act that aimed to restrict immigration by imposing literacy tests on immigrants, creating new categories of inadmissible persons, and barring immigration from the Asia–Pacific region. The most sweeping immigration act the United States had passed until that time it followed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in marking a turn toward nativism. The 1917 act governed immigration policy until it was amended by the Immigration Act of 1924; both acts were revised by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Asian immigration to the United States refers to immigration to the United States from part of the continent of Asia, which includes East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Asian-origin populations have historically been in the territory that would eventually become the United States since the 16th century. The first major wave of Asian immigration occurred in the late 19th century, primarily in Hawaii and the West Coast. Asian Americans experienced exclusion, and limitations to immigration, by the United States law between 1875 and 1965, and were largely prohibited from naturalization until the 1940s. Since the elimination of Asian exclusion laws and the reform of the immigration system in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there has been a large increase in the number of immigrants to the United States from Asia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1882</span>

The Immigration Act of 1882 was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on August 3, 1882. It imposed a head tax on non-citizens of the United States who came to American ports and restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or "any person unable to take care of him or herself." The act created what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration, such as the Immigration Act of 1891.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Chinese Americans</span>

The history of Chinese Americans or the history of ethnic Chinese in the United States includes three major waves of Chinese immigration to the United States, beginning in the 19th century. Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked in the California Gold Rush of the 1850s and the Central Pacific Railroad in the 1860s. They also worked as laborers in Western mines. They suffered racial discrimination at every level of White society. Many Americans were stirred to anger by the "Yellow Peril" rhetoric. Despite provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty between the U.S. and China, political and labor organizations rallied against "cheap Chinese labor".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Page Act of 1875</span> United States law banning Chinese women immigrants

The Page Act of 1875 was the first restrictive federal immigration law in the United States, which effectively prohibited the entry of Chinese women, marking the end of open borders. Seven years later, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banned immigration by Chinese men as well.

On February 19, 1862, the 37th United States Congress passed An Act to Prohibit the "Coolie Trade" by American Citizens in American Vessels. The act, which would be called the Anti-Coolie Act of 1862 in short, was passed by the California State Legislature in an attempt to appease rising anger among white laborers about salary competition created by the influx of Chinese immigrants at the height of the California Gold Rush. The act sought to protect white laborers by imposing a monthly tax on Chinese immigrants seeking to do business in the state of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rock Springs massacre</span> 1885 killing of Chinese people in Wyoming

The Rock Springs massacre, also known as the Rock Springs riot, occurred on September 2, 1885, in the present-day United States city of Rock Springs in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The riot, and resulting massacre of immigrant Chinese miners by European immigrant miners, was the result of racial prejudice toward the Chinese miners, who were taking jobs from the existing miners. The Union Pacific Coal Department found it economically beneficial to give preference in hiring to Chinese miners, who were willing to work for lower wages than their European counterparts, which angered the existing miners. When the rioting ended, at least 28 Chinese miners were dead and 15 were injured. Rioters burned 78 Chinese homes, resulting in approximately $150,000 in property damage. Despite the identification of the perpetrators, no individuals were prosecuted for the murders or property destruction.

The 1885 Alien Contract Labor Law, also known as the Foran Act, was an act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia.

During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing "open border" policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to “white persons” as of 1790, and naturalization subject to five year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry into America, rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws. Processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.

The Cantaloupe strike of 1928 was labor movement of cantaloupe pickers in Imperial Valley, California. On May 7, 1928 cantaloupe pickers walked off of the job and the strike lasted to May 10 of the same year. The strikers had hardly any outside support and many were effectively imprisoned by local police for gathering together in any public space during the strike. The strikers were mostly Mexican immigrants or of Mexican descent because they comprised the vast majority of produce laborers in California, about 3,500 to 4,000 Mexicans worked as cantaloupe pickers. While the strike was short-lived and seemingly unorganized, it stands as a victory for the workers.

After slavery was abolished in the United States, Chinese laborers were imported to the South as cheap labor to replace freed Blacks on the plantations. Many of the early Chinese laborers came from sugar plantations in Cuba and after the transcontinental railroad was completed, California also contributed to the labor supply. These laborers formed communities in the pockets of the Southeastern part of the United States, encountering racist policies and crossing paths with the African American community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1891</span>

The Immigration Act of 1891, also known as the 1891 Immigration Act, was a modification of the Immigration Act of 1882, focusing on immigration rules and enforcement mechanisms for foreigners arriving from countries other than China. It was the second major federal legislation related to the mechanisms and authority of immigration enforcement, the first being the Immigration Act of 1882. The law was passed on March 3, 1891, at the end of the term of the 51st United States Congress, and signed into law by then United States President Benjamin Harrison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">19th-century Chinese immigration to America</span>

Chinese immigration to America in the 19th century is commonly referred to as the first wave of Chinese Americans, and are mainly Cantonese and Taishanese speaking people.

References

  1. ↑ Charles Caldwell Hawley (2014). A Kennecott Story. The University of Utah Press. pp. 117–119.
  2. ↑ Humbert S. Nelli, "The Italian padrone system in the United States." Labor History 5.2 (1964): 153-167.
  3. ↑ George E. Pozzetta, A Padrone Looks at Florida: Labor Recruiting and the Florida East Coast Railway, The Florida Historical Quarterly vol. 54, no. 1 (July 1975),75.
  4. ↑ "Immigration: Italian: Working Across the Country". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
  5. ↑ Fitzgerald, Patrick Fitzgerald and Brian Lambkin, Migration in Irish History, 1607-2007, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 193, 200.
  6. ↑ "United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ike Kozminski, Margarethe Kozminski, and John Kozminski". Justia. 16 April 1987. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  7. ↑ Ben Lariccia, Joe Tucciarone (May 2019). "Bound for America, Part Two". Gazzetta Italiana. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  8. ↑ Robert F. Harney, "The Padrone and the Immigrant," Canadian Review of American Studies (1974) 5#2 pp 101-118
  9. ↑ Alfred T. Banfield, ““The padrone, the sojourners, and the settlers: a preface to the 'little Italics' of Maine." Maine Historical Society Quarterly (1992) Vol. 31 Issue 3/4, pp 114-141.
  10. ↑ "End of Italian Slavery". National Republican. Washington D. C. July 13, 1886. p. Image 1. Retrieved July 1, 2017– via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.
  11. ↑ "Moreno Gives Bond". The Evening Star. Washington D. C. July 12, 1895. p. 2. Retrieved July 1, 2017– via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.
  12. ↑ Glazier, Jack; Helweg, Arthur (2001). Ethnicity in Michigan: Issues and People . Michigan State University Press. p.  33. ISBN   978-0-87013-581-1.
  13. ↑ Gunther Peck, Reinventing Free Labor: Padrones and Immigrant Workers in the North American West, 1880-1930, (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 34-47.
  14. ↑ George E. Pozzetta, "A Padrone Looks at Florida: Labor Recruiting and the Florida East Coast Railway," The Florida Historical Quarterly (1975) 54#1 pp:74-84. Quote on page 75. in JSTOR him
  15. ↑ For this section see Gunther Peck, Reinventing Free Labor: Padrones and Immigrant Workers in the North American West, 1880-1930, (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 51-3.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 U.S. Immigration Legislation Online, ed. Sarah Starkweather, University of Washington-Bothell. (Last revised 2007) http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/USimmigrationlegislation.html
  17. ↑ “United States. Abstracts of reports of the Immigration Commission: with conclusions and recommendations, and views of the minority,” vol. 2, (Washington : G.P.O., 1911), 376, Harvard University Library, Page Delivery Service, http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5232512
  18. ↑ “Text of the Alien Immigration Act,” University at Buffalo Libraries, The Statutes at Large of the United States From ... / edited, printed, and published under the Authority of an Act of Congress, and under the direction of the Secretary of State. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, v. 32 (March 8, 1903) pp. 1213-1222. http://library.buffalo.edu/exhibits/panam/ law/images/1903alienact.pdf.
  19. 1 2 3 4 Reed Ueda, Postwar Immigrant America: A Social History, Appendix B, (New York: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1994): 169.
  20. ↑ “Legislation from 1901-1940: Immigration Act of February 20, 1907 (34 Statutes-at-Large, 898).” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, http://www.nps.gov/elis/forteachers/upload/Legislation-1901-1940.pdf

Bibliography

Online sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.