Previews

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 308 words from this article are provided below; about 591 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

Previews | The Journal of American History, 86.1 | The History Cooperative

The unsuccessful campaign against the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Mary Hershberger argues, had great significance in the histories of American women and American reform movements. The proposed law generated mass opposition that created new forms of political protest and nearly defeated the bill. Young people flocked to the campaign. Some opponents defied state removal measures and went to prison in protest. To defeat removal, women created their first national petition drive, which drew many otherwise traditional women into public political activity. Though the bill passed and removal proceeded, opponents of removal drew on their experience to change the focus and methods of the antislavery movement: They decisively rejected colonization in favor of immediate abolition, determined to prevent what they perceived as a second unjust removal.

Catherine Collomp, whose essay won the OAH Foreign-Language Article Prize for 1998, compares the role of the state in regulating immigration into France and the United States from 1880 to 1930. The comparative perspective reveals parameters that remain invisible in a single-nation account. Examination of how negotiations between nations organized immigration to France shows how immigrants to the United States were detached from their states of origin and seen solely as individual candidates for American citizenship. Efforts by the French state, employers, and unions to tailor immigration to specific labor shortages prevented the unequal treatment of immigrants common in the United States, even as they impeded the free movement of immigrants within France. Collomp's analysis uncovers factors that led to the ethnicization of immigrants to the United States and, conversely, the disappearance of ethnicity in the formation of the French working class.

Often historians treat the passage of a law as a culmination of public agitation and contest. In a study of the Immigration Act of 1924, which screened immigrants according to their national origins and excluded all Asians, . . .

There are about 591 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.