A Hired Historian (or) Other People's Archives

I couldn't be more excited to be back in Washington D.C. The city, though somewhat familiar, still a lot of surprises. When Emily and I arrived at the Mall a few minutes before an appointment, we stopped at the National Museum of Natural History and looked at a Giant Squid specimen. Later that afternoon I was flipping through the Andrew Jackson Papers at the Library of Congress. How many people do you think have done those two things in an afternoon? Later that day I skipped the gym and sat around eating popcorn to celebrate my accomplishments.

My first couple of days of research in Washington are on behalf of another historian, currently living in California. This makes me feel a bit like a hired hit-man, except with less killing and more historical documents. At the very least, it serves as a nice warm-up for my own work, which I hope to start next week.

Working in unfamiliar archives can be an adventure. Rules vary from archive to archive - but regulations tend to trend in a particular directions. When I started working in archives only a few years ago, people looked at me like I was from Pluto when I asked if I could use a camera to photograph documents. Now, both the Library of Congress and the National Archives ask visiting researchers if they have a camera with them to photograph documents. Some archives allow you to take a box of documents off of your cart, others ask that you only remove a folder at a time. But these are mostly inconsequential differences.

Another challenge of being a hired historian is that you can't really explain to archivists the nature of the project. Explaining my own dissertation to a willing audience is no problem (I say 'willing' because I have, admittedly, been guilty of waxing poetic about my research to audiences that would rather discuss - say - earthworms). But explaining someone else's research as it progresses can be more of a challenge. In this case, I was looking for documents related to military history - which isn't exactly my specialty.

And to make my inadequacy, my father sent me an e-mail this evening about a research trip he did on my behalf in Minnesota. The man stopped at a historical society and read newspapers in GERMAN because he thought he might be able to find some more information on an incident that is of interest to me. And you know what? The man absolutely nailed it. He found an article on microfilm, can I just say this again, in GERMAN. This dude took his last German class in the 1960s and the man walks into a research library and reads Gothic print Deutsche in his free time.

An archive starts to feel like home when you begin to know the people. You run into the same researchers day after day. You get to know the archivists. The nerdy intern requests to be your friend on facebook. You suggest a book to another historian, you goof off with the archivists, and if you're really nice, the interns will let you play soccer with them.

Sure, it is was an experience working with documents at two of the largest research centers in the world. I look forward to when my own research takes me there. But for now, I find the experience of working in smaller archives to be more satisfying on a personal level. Intellectually, I'd argue that working in small archives has made me a stronger historian. I certainly wouldn't argue that archivists at major institutions aren't helpful - quite the contrary, they are often well-trained and extremely helpful. When you're a familiar face, however, archivists tend to go out of their way to make sure you get what you need.

It seems as though every year I need to re-teach myself how to read handwriting from the 19th century. Despite the fact that it is the same language that I pretend to speak everyday, it feels like I'm working on a foreign tongue. And it doesn't even come with those fun Rosetta Stone practice games.

There is both a certain level of excitement and a level of trepidation in moving to a new place and starting a new job. This is certainly true in my case, anyway. I'm pining for a return to my archival home at the Smithsonian.

Goodbyes of a Sort

My time in D.C. has come to an end, and I'm honestly a bit sad to leave. Two months isn't a lot of time to spend in one place, especially a place like this one. Thankfully I've found a lot of great sources, though every door I opened led me to three more that I'll need to follow up on later on.

To recap the archival materials I used this summer:
NARA I
- Basic INS records, though these never went anywhere
- Congressional Records, especially House and Senate Judiciary Committee Records. Particularly useful here were the Special Subcommittee on Emigration and Refugees, 1955-1959.

NARA II
- Department of State Records. Vexing at times, and I'm sure I've only scratched the surface, but incredibly useful.
- Secretary of Agriculture Records. Not useful at all.

Library of Congress
- Emanuel Celler Papers. (Boxes relating to Immigration and Refugee issues.)

I spent the first few days of this week going through my notes and putting everything onto a time line in excel, so that I could sort by date, keywords, etc. I'm still going through what I have, but I already know that the 1955-1959 period, and especially the Refugee Relief Act, is much more important than what scholars have given it credit for. I also am getting more and more interested in the issue of Military Brides, and how so much of our immigration rules about what constitutes "family" migration emerged from wartime exigencies.

I'm also playing around with a few ideas about governmental institutions, and trying to place together how State fits in with the rest of federal immigration/refugee policy. Daniel Tichenor has already posited the congressional lag thesis of postwar immigration policy, where the Executive Branch led the way toward immigration liberalization, but I wonder if it's even more nuanced than that, with State leading the way, and other agencies following. I need to think about this more.

Anyways, for now this will be my last post, until I spend some more time going through my research, or until I hit my next archive!

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for more posts from Emily and Sam.

Phil

...or so I thought

Well, I got to the Library of Congress this morning thinking that I still had four boxes of materials to look through in the Celler Papers. I've been working my way backwards through the collection (don't ask...it's what I usually do,) and thought that these last four would take me two days to get through. Now here I am about two hours after I started, and I'm finished. 2 of the boxes contained nothing but pamphelts from outside organizations, many of which I've already seen, and Congressional hearings, records, etc., which I've also already seen. The remaining two boxes contained general correspondence coming into Celler's office, but unlike a lot of the later records in the collection, don't seem to have any of his responses or outgoing letters.

I have to think that the disparity between earlier and later records has something to do with when the collections were donated to the Library. Celler donated all of his records through about 1956 in 1967, while he was still a Congressman. The remaider of the collection was donated in 1972 and 1977, at the end and after he left the House. Possibly once out of Congress he felt that he didn't need to hold on to quite as much?

Hitting the Homestretch

My time in D.C. is rapidly winding down (for now), but I think I’ve just about gotten through what I came to do. I have a few more days of research in NARA II to finish up some State Department and Secretary of Agriculture Records, and a couple more days at the Library of Congress to finish up with the Celler Papers. All in all I’ve found a lot of really great stuff, have learned to use the collections, and have a good sense of what other collections I’ll need to look at.

For one, if I do continue to pursue the labor angle (both skilled and unskilled visa categories/admissions,) I’ll need to look through the Department of Labor files. I also might need to look through the Department of Education for the student issue, but again, only if I go down that road. I also didn’t have a chance to look through the Office of the Budget files, which should be a good way to get around the dearth of INS files, and I might try to take another stab at finding the relevant INS records (not likely though.)

I’ll also need to head to Boston to look at the Abba Schwartz Papers, as well as Princeton for the Michael Feighan Papers, and possibly even Reno for the Pat McCarran Papers. Stopping by the Johnson Library wouldn’t be a bad idea either…

In my next post I’ll have some thoughts on the Secretary of Agriculture files, but for now, I’ve only just begun working with them.

The Importance of International Affairs in Immigration Policy, Part 1

I’ve been spending more time in the Library of Congress lately, and have found a couple of really interesting documents. One in particular I’d like to talk about today:

The first is a document entitled “Refugee Problems, World Survey,” a State Department report from 1958. The document outlines U.S. refugee policy throughout the world, and U.S. interests in various refugee crises. Of interest to my work are the sections on Hong Kong. The document states

It is a basic policy of the United States to seek to promote friendship for the United States among the captive populations and to bolster their hope and faith in ultimate freedom. As long as the Chinese refugees in Hong Kong, having rejected Communism, were willfully enduring unexampled misery and hopelessness rather than return to their Communist-dominated homeland, the United States could not remain unidentified with efforts to meet the problem.

State then lists three possible courses of action – to “remain indifferent”; to offer substantial aid; or “to begin a program of limited and selective assistance.” State recommends the latter.

On the surface this decision isn’t surprising – while supporting Chinese refugees in Hong Kong was seen as an important part of the fight against Communist China, by discrediting the regime and by giving hope to others still inside the “Bamboo Curtain,” in practice, the U.S. focused their refugee efforts much more on eastern Europe, and on escapees from the Iron Curtain. Legislators designing refugee legislation spoke of “token numbers” of refugees from China, and shied away from any effort that would admit great numbers of Asians.

But by viewing only the domestic picture, or the legislative debates, a rather one-sided picture emerges – whatever their motivations, legislators did not want to resettle large groups of Chinese refugees. But, going back to State’s report, the reason given for advocating only limited intervention is illuminating. After discounting the first proposition (doing nothing,) on principle, the report states

The second alternative was not practicable, since it constituted a virtual assumption of responsibility at vast cost to the United States for a matter that properly rested with the sovereign British authorities in Hong Kong. Moreover, such a program would have been in conflict with the British political position and would have contained a threat to British prestige in the Far East.

While we can’t simply take the report’s word on face value, the added element of U.S.-British diplomacy incorporates another dimension to the pros and cons of refugee intervention. I need to play with this idea more, but I think the Colonial, and specifically British, interests in Hong Kong need to be considered, when analyzing East Asian refugee policy. (I’ve also found a number of other documents referring to Britain’s interests in Hong Kong, to the point where one State Department dispatch writes that Britain most probably recognized the government of Communist China to protect it’s own business interests in the territory.)

In my next post I’m going to talk about a series of cases prepared by Congressman Celler’s staff, to highlight the restrictiveness of the McCarran-Walter Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.)

Researching the Library of Congress

OK, so now for the substantive post about doing research at the Library of Congress (and a bit more on the National Archives at the bottom...)

After assorted computer and access issues (see below) I finally got to pend two good days in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division. The LOC itself is split into three buildings, and the MS division is in the Madison building, away from the main reading room. Unlike the National Archives, you store your stuff in lockers inside the Manuscript reading room (though before passing through security.) Each day you check in at the security desk, and they hand you a key for the lockers (also unlike NARA, where the lockers cost $.25.) Your locker number is more or less your ID number for the day, and every time you enter or leave the room, you give the guards your number, and they mark down time of entry and exit (presumably for security reasons...I'm guessing no one really cares how long I take to use the restroom...) The reading room itself is pretty large, and even during the middle of the summer, it seems as though it can hold probably four times as many people. In general it seems like the vibe is much more casual here - most people are wearing shorts, most seem like graduate students or young professors (i.e. much younger than NARA,) and there doesn't seem to be as many casual researchers. People flock to NARA to look through genealogical records, but the LOC collections are mainly personal papers and organizational records, so I would imagine most people have a more serious research interest. (Although I did see one girl watching a movie while going through her materials!)

The advantage to doing research in more clearly defined collections like personal papers is mainly in the organization of the collections. The papers of Congressman Emanuel Celler that I came to look at were donated in two batches, instead of over time like some of the Congressional or State Department Records in NARA. This means that the collections were organized and indexed in one period, so the finding aid is pretty well put together, and pretty comprehensive. Granted it's still a print-only finding aid, and the paper itself looks like a dog might have chewed on it at some point, but it's still all there, and easily accessible. There are something like 500 boxes in the collection, and the finding aid contains an annotated list of the boxes and their contents (i.e. Box 19: Immigration, Notes and Clippings through 1954.) After looking through the collection, I think I'll need to see about 24 boxes of materials.

The archivists at LOC are incredibly helpful and friendly, and seemed very eager to try and help me with my research. Unlike NARA there are no "pull times" for materials, so you just fill out a call slip and they bring you your boxes about five minutes later. They only let you take out four boxes at a time, but again, since you can request materials at any time, it's really not a problem. (The one interesting quirk I found is that they make you fill out a new call slip every day, even if you've placed boxes on hold already. One of the archivists told me that the only real advantage of placing things on hold here is that the carts are left at the front of the stacks, instead of filed away, so you save a minute or two.)

Other advantages of researching in the Library of Congress is that they have free wifi (really helpful for googling names, acronyms, etc. that you come across while researching,) and that the desks themselves are really spacious, and don't have dividers (only two people per desk, though because of the amount of space, no one seemed to be doubled up.) The major disadvantage I've found is that while the room is pretty bright, it's not particularly well lit for taking photos. The images I'm getting from the LOC are much poorer in quality than those from NARA. Oh well...I'll need to spend much more time here before I can get a better sense of the collections, but so far what I've found has been really useful.

On a separate note, it seems like I'm starting to run out of materials at NARA I. I've looked at a lot of the materials from the 1950s, and am trying now to access some of the stuff from the 1940s, but it seems as thought the records from the 1960s are much harder to get at. For one thing, there is a blanket 50 year rule on records containing personal information, so at the very least I'd have to wait another two years before seeing the records (and up to another 10, considering my project goes through 1968.) Congress is also exempt from FOIA, so I can't exactly press for their release. There might be a workaround or two, but I think after this coming week I'll be spending the majority of my time left here at NARA II and the LOC.

What a Week...

Apologies for the breaking in blogging...I was actually in the middle of writing a new post last night, when my hard drive died. So now, after spending a full day at the Apple Store, I have a new drive, more or less updated. (Thank God for extended warranties and external hard drives. I'm really glad I picked one up before I left, otherwise I would have lost all of the photos I've been taking in the archives.)

The dead hard drive capped a really mediocre week in the archives. This was supposed to be my first full week (without weddings, holidays, etc.) to work, but so far I've managed only to get in a full day on Monday, and two half days - Tuesday and Wednesday. I started the week with 14 boxes of materials at NARA, thinking that would take me the better part of the week. I found some great stuff on Monday, but when I got back to the archives on Tuesday morning, I realized that at least 8 of the boxes weren't useful at all, and much of the materials in two other boxes just didn't relate. (You just never know beforehand.) Plus the archivist I'd been working with wasn't going to be back in until Thursday, so I decided to call it a day.

With the lull in materials, I decided to head to the Library of Congress, to check out the Emanuel Celler Papers. It took me a bit of time to find the correct entrance ot the building, and to get to the research room, so by the time I got there, it was closer to 9:45am. I got to the front desk, and the woman tells me: "We're shutting the building. You need to leave now." Considering it was still early, I was a bit confused, but she reitreated. "We're shutting the building for an emergency preparedness drill in five minutes. If you don't leave immediately, you'll be locked in with no power in the building. Come back after 11." Great. Just great. So I came back at 11, with all of the other people who had been kicked out, waited on a very long line to get my reader's card, and finally go into the manuscript division closer to noon.

I've got a lot more to say about the Library of Congress and their collections, but I'll save that for another post...

Adventures in the Library of Congress

I went to the Library of Congress today as the National Anthropological Archives are closed on Mondays.  I think I nearly avoided a lifetime ban from the Main Reading Room.

In the midst of my afternoon, with my pile of books sitting next to my laptop, I heard some noise and fuss next to me.  I was sitting in the last row, up against the wall, with only two other patrons.  By the time I looked up, the lady sitting next to me was packing up her things and whispering loudly to the man next to her in an upset tone, "This is a library!"  Obviously, the man next to her had done something inappropriate.  It was clear that she was getting up to immediately report him to security, but I had visions of her saying to the guard, "the man in the back said something inappropriate to me," causing the guard to flip a coin and ask me, instead of the man next to me, to leave the reading room never to return.  

Thankfully, the accused was given a verbal warning and he picked up and left.  Anyway, I am grateful that the other library patron gave security a detailed description of the man that was bothering her.  Thanks to her description, I will be allowed in to the Library of Congress again next Monday.