Paper presented to the conference, "Zeeland to America," at the Roosevelt Studies Center, Middelburg, The Netherlands, September 5, 1997

Dutch emigrants thought long and hard before deciding to go to America, and once the decision was made they were just as deliberate about planning the journey across the ocean and selecting the place of settlement. They had time to plan their journey to America because they were not forced like the Irish to flee from famine, or like the Germans to run from revolution, or like the Russian Jews to escape persecution.

In order to plan the voyage across, a number of key questions had to be addressed. Which port cities were most conveniently located, taking account of fares and the quality of service offered by the various shipping companies? What was the most favorable time of year to sail, considering weather conditions and also the prospects for finding work upon arrival? Was it advantageous to travel in large groups, which offered greater security but also the inevitable delays and loss of control over travel arrangements? Or could individuals and single families traveling alone obtain equally favorable fares

and yet retain more personal freedom and independence?

The answers to these and many similar questions about immigrant traffic can be found in official records and reports, personal travel diaries, and in letters sent back to family and friends about the journey across. The letters and diaries portray individual experiences and reveal the pathos of leaving, the routine of the ocean passage, the often lengthy inland passage, and the exhilaration of arrival in the land of promise. But the personal experiences of the few whose accounts have survived may not be typical. Hence, it is necessary to consult shipping company passenger manifests, which formed the basis of United States customs reports and immigration statistics.

The U.S. ship passenger lists, which begin in 1820, contain biographical information on twenty-five million persons who entered the United States in the following 125 years. Among this number were at least 25,000 Zeelanders who sailed into U.S. ports between l835 and 1920. In the first period of emigration, 1835-1880, 14,000 Zeelanders left for overseas destination of which 96 percent settled in the USA. Between 1881 and 1900 11,300 Zeelanders emigrated, 87 percent going to the USA. Between 1901 and 1920 another 8,000 Zeelanders departed overseas, but only Exploring the social characteristics and travel patterns of this large group reveals some of the dynamics of international migration. The passenger lists also provide the only age-specific data on all Dutch emigrants, since the Netherlands emigration lists only provide the age of the head of the household or single persons.

A Congressional law of l8l9 first required ship captains to submit to American customs officials sworn manifests of arriving passengers (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 15). The law, which took effect January 1, 1820, called for the reporting of such personal information as name, age, sex, occupation, country of last residence, and country or place of intended destination. Congress in l855 added a question on shipboard accommodations--whether cabin, second class, steerage, etc.--and in l882 and l893 the lawmakers added questions on family relationships, marital status, literacy, financial resources, ticketing details, whether a temporary or permanent immigrant, the specific place of origin, and the "zone" or city of destination.

That the U.S. immigration laws prior to 1882 did not ask immigrants to report their specific communities of origin and destination is the most serious deficiency for those desiring to understand the localistic tendencies and geographical selectivity of emigration. Without this information, the place of origin of emigrants cannot be known directly. There is an acceptable indirect method, however, in the case of European nations such as the Netherlands, which compiled annual lists of overseas emigrants from each local community. The Dutch emigration records begin in the mid-l830s, and they have been linked with the ship passenger manifests containing Dutch nationals during the period l835-l880.

The immigrant trade was clearly tied to the normal lines of transatlantic commerce. The early vessels were mainly freighters that carried raw American produce such as cotton to Europe and on the return trip "human freight" provided a paying ballast. Since Liverpool's Waterloo Docks was the leading European freight port, and New York City controlled the cotton trade, ships from these ports could offer immigrants the cheapest fares. The Irish particularly took advantage of these bargains. Ports with more frequent departures also lessened the problem of costly waiting time in harbor cities.

Dutch immigrants in the period l820-l880 traveled on more than two thousand different ships. But in the l850s and l860s, as the packet steamers came to replace the often irregular sailing vessels, the Dutch, like the other European travelers, increasingly took passage on relatively fewer, specially designed immigrant ships that shuttled between Europe and America on regular schedules.

In the early years, before the onset of the Great Migration in the mid-l840s, Dutch nationals traveled singly or as single families. After the mass emigration began in the mid-1840s, however, more than one-half of the Dutch crossed in groups of 10 or more. In l846-l847, several Seceder congregations emigrated in very large groups of up to 900. But the leaders divided the travelers into smaller contingents of 200 to 300 because of the limited carrying capacity of the sailing vessels and to reduce the risks from accidents at sea that might otherwise obliterate an entire congregation. Thus, the picture of Dutch emigration is clearly that of a constant trickle rather than a flood. Apart from the years l846 and l847, passage in large groups was the exception rather than the rule.

Dutch, English, Belgian, French, and German shipping companies dominated the northern European passenger trade in the

mid-nineteenth century, and this in large degree influenced the choice of ports of embarkation. Prior to the l840s the ports of Amsterdam and Le Havre vied for dominance over the Dutch emigrant traffic. Amsterdam's early preeminence stemmed from its direct link to the North Sea at Den Helder via the North Holland Canal constructed in l8l9-l824. But the waterway was woefully inadequate and Amsterdam shipping was handicapped until l895 when the North Sea Canal was cut through to the Sea at nearby IJmuiden.

After l840 Rotterdam became the preeminent port for Dutch emigrants, supplanting Amsterdam. Only in the decade of the l860s did Liverpool and London surpass the premier Dutch harbor on the Maas River (Table 4.l). These English ports carried 4,200 Dutch, compared to only 1,600 at Rotterdam. But in the 1870s, Rotterdam shipped 8,500, compared to 5,500 through England. For the entire sixty-year period, 28,000 Dutch crossed to America out of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, compared to only 13,000 from Liverpool and London (a 2:1 ratio). Until 1840 Amsterdam surpassed Rotterdam in the American immigrant traffic, but Rotterdam then gained the ascendancy and never looked back. In the 1840s, when the large Seceder groups departed, 62 percent of all Dutch emigrants embarked for America directly from Rotterdam and only 15 percent sailed from Amsterdam.

Rotterdam always had the advantageous position astride the Rhine delta, whereas Amsterdam had only tortuous waterways to tap the Rhineland. But Rotterdam received a bad reputation in the l820s because immigrants often had to wait for several weeks for transatlantic transport (because freight traffic with the United States was insignificant), and the unexpected expenses for food and lodging sometimes forced emigrants into indenture contracts to pay for the passage. Government regulations of shipping companies were lax and temporary lodging for emigrants at the port was expensive and inadequate because of a lack of official concern. Rotterdam city fathers, for their part, met the transport problem by cutting a canal across the island of Voorne in l830 to the navigable Haringvliet, which gave the city direct access to the North Sea. But the Voorne canal proved inadequate in the l860s and Rotterdam became a mere "transit port" for emigrants to reach London or Liverpool. The city leaders then constructed the New Waterway directly to the sea at Hoek van Holland, which enabled Rotterdam to recover its salient position.

The Dutch government helped by creating in l86l an oversight agency, the Commission for the Supervision of the Transit and Transport of Emigrants [Commissie voor toezicht op de doortogt en het vervoer van landverhuizers]. The major shipping companies also worked with a will to rebuild their tarnished reputations. The firm of Wambersie, one of the major emigrant agencies and shipping companies since l830, helped establish the Holland-American Steamship Company (N.A.S.M.) in l87l. By l873 the Holland-American Line began regular passenger and freight service and by l890 it had 2,000 agents throughout the Netherlands recruiting emigrants and offering free lodging in Rotterdam.

The more southerly ports of Le Havre and Antwerp tried to compete with Rotterdam but with minimal success. Le Havre primarily served the Paris region and industrial centers of the lower Seine River valley. Its dock facilities were inadequate until l850. Antwerp had poor landward links to its hinterland until the construction in l859 of a canal between the Meuse and the Scheldt rivers. As a result, Le Havre and Antwerp shared only l4 percent of the Dutch immigrant traffic in the l840s. In the l850s Antwerp and also Liverpool gained in favor, attracting l7 percent and l5 percent respectively of Dutch passengers, but Rotterdam remained dominant with 48 percent. Amsterdam declined to only 6 percent and by the l870s it was not used at all. Liverpool and London snagged one-fourth of the Dutch traffic in the l850s but by the l870s Liverpool had totally eclipsed London, and Rotterdam had regained its lead at 52 percent. For the entire sixty-year period, 46.7 percent of the Dutch emigrants sailed to the United States directly from Rotterdam, l8.5 percent transshipped from Liverpool, 11.4 percent used Antwerp, and Amsterdam, London, and Le Havre each had approximately 6 percent. Least important were Bremen with 2.4 percent and Glasgow with l.9 percent (Table 4.1).

The next question is: which Dutch emigrants sailed from which ports? As Table 4.2 shows, of those who departed from the Dutch ports, 48.2 percent lived in the nearby western provinces of Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht, and rural Zeeland; 25.8 percent were from the northern provinces of Friesland, Groningen, and Drente; 2l.2 percent originated in the eastern provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel; and only 4.8 percent hailed from the southern Catholic provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg. For the emigrants who transshipped via British ports, the regional origins differed somewhat: 38.3 percent came from the western provinces, 36.9 percent from the northern region, l9.4 percent from the east, and again only 5.3 percent were from the southern provinces. Thus, 20 percent fewer Dutch from the western provinces sailed over England, but 20 percent more did so from the northern provinces.

&#The origins of emigrants embarking from Belgian, French, and German ports differed substantially from these patterns. Of those using Belgian and French ports, 60.4 percent lived in the western provinces, which was l2 percent greater than those using Dutch ports and 22 percent more than those embarking from British ports. Similarly, the number of Catholic migrants from the southern Netherlands using nearby Belgian and French harbors increased three-fold to l4.6 percent. Conversely and not unexpectedly, fewer inhabitants of the northern and eastern provinces emigrated from the distant Belgian and French ports. Most of the Dutch emigrants who used the German ports of Bremen and Hamburg were from the adjacent northern and eastern provinces, which were within convenient range of German emigrant agents.

These regional variations in the Dutch emigrant traffic also reflect underlying religious and demographic distinctions. The Dutch Catholic proportion sailing from Belgian, French, and German harbors was twice as high as that from Dutch and British ports. Only 12 percent of Dutch emigrants via Liverpool and London were Catholic, compared to 24 percent of those Dutch using Belgian, French, and German ports. Given this religious distinction, it is not surprising that the demographic characteristics also differed. The Dutch households sailing from Belgian and French ports were larger: 37 percent had five or more persons and the average number of persons per emigrant household was 3.85. This compares with 3.43 and 3.34 persons per household, respectively, for families sailing from Dutch and British ports. Only 28 percent of the Dutch embarking from Belgian and French harbors were single, compared with 37 percent and 39 percent, respectively, from Dutch and British ports. On German ships, the reverse was the case: 46 percent were singles and only 23 percent had large families (5 or more persons).

Proximity, price, scheduling, comfort and familiarity, and the activity of shipping company agents were also factors in the selection of a port of embarkation and of the particular vessel

of passage. The Dutch transportation network of canal boats and later of railroads funneled people into the port cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam and made them easily accessible to emigrants. Limburgers, Noord-Brabanters, and Zeelanders from the south of the Netherlands, by the same token, traveled to nearby Antwerp or more distant Le Havre. More than three quarters of the Limburg emigrants in the years before l860 departed from Belgian and French ports, as did 23 percent of the Brabanters and l9 percent of the Zeelanders. Conversely, emigrants from Friesland and Overijsel had the highest proportion (l4 percent and l2 percent, respectively) who transshipped via English ports (Table 4.3).

During the l860s, as was noted above, Liverpool's share of the Dutch emigrants increased dramatically and Rotterdam's share slipped. For emigrants from five provinces--Noord-Holland, Noord-Brabant, Drente, Gelderland, and Overijsel--the proportion embarking from British ports increased from below l0 percent before l860 to 40-55 percent thereafter (Table 4.3). The three provinces lying farthest inland and hence at the greatest distance from England showed the sharpest increase. The proportion of emigrants from Drente using Liverpool and London increased from zero before l860 to 4l percent after l860. Comparable percentages for Gelderlanders and Brabanters are 3 to 52 and 7 to 55. In the other six provinces, the shift to England was more modest, rising from below 5 percent before l860 to 22-30 percent afterwards. Nearly one-third of the Zeelanders and one-half of the Limburgers also continued to use nearby Belgian and French ports. The Dutch ports after l860 snared at least one-half of the emigrants only from the western provinces and the inland provinces of Overijsel and Drente that either bordered the IJsselmeer or had ready water access to it.

Liverpool and London, though more inconvenient, gained a larger share of the Dutch traffic only because of their lower fares. To reach the English harbors, Dutch emigrants had first to cross the English Channel from Amsterdam or Rotterdam to Hull and then take the train to London or, more commonly, to traverse England by "fast train" directly to Liverpool. Going via England added a week or more to the total voyage, in addition to the extra overland travel costs and the language problems with Englishmen. Father Theodore van den Broek of Little Chute, Wisconsin, wrote his compatriots in Noord-Brabant in l847: "I would not advise anyone to go by way of England; because in addition to the freight being higher, a person has a great deal of trouble with the English officials. So it is much better to leave by ship directly from Rotterdam or from Amsterdam, or even by way of Le Havre by steamer to New York. Le Havre offered ocean steamers already in l847.

The poorer emigrants, it appears, were more willing to tolerate the inconveniences of transshipping via England in order to obtain the cost savings on the transoceanic ticket. This is indicated by the occupations of the emigrants using the various ports. Sixty percent of the unskilled emigrants sailed from British ports, which was more than twice the rate for craftsmen and white collar persons, and four times the rate of farmers (Table 4.4). British ports were used by 3l.7 percent of white collar emigrants, 27.5 percent of craftsmen, l3.8 percent of farmers, and a whopping 60.4 percent of unskilled workers. Dutch ports were utilized by 57.5 percent of farmers, 50.l percent of craftsmen, and 4l.9 percent of the white collar group; but only 26.9 percent of the unskilled. Belgian ports served more Dutch farmers and craftsmen than unskilled workers, as did French and German ports to a lesser extent.

Indirect evidence also supports the finding that poorer emigrants used the less convenient but cheaper British ports. The proportion of emigrants who had been subject to the Dutch head tax (hoofdelijke omslag), which was based on income, was higher among those leaving from Dutch ports and lowest among the Dutch departing from British and German ports. Finally, the percentage of Dutch passengers from each port who bought steerage tickets, which offered the cheapest shipboard accommodations, were 93 percent from British, Belgian, and French ports, compared to a notably lower 87 percent at Dutch ports and 86 percent on German vessels. Since Dutch unskilled workers sailed in steerage 97.7 percent of the time, compared to only 87.2 percent for craftsmen, the correlation between English ports of departure and poorer Dutch emigrants is clear.

Inferences drawn from these findings are just that. But the data conform to the expected pattern. The port of preference was clearly the nearest port city--Rotterdam--unless cost considerations gave the edge to more distant, usually foreign ports. In the latter case, those emigrants for whom cost was an overriding factor would be attracted. This usually meant going to Liverpool, but it also sent emigrants to Brussels, Le Havre, Bremen, and Hamburg.

Immigrant Agents

The major immigrant agency and ship broker in the Netherlands in the middle decades of the nineteenth century was the Rotterdam firm of Wambersie, founded in l838 by Johan Wambersie (l806-l874). Wambersie was ideally suited to capture the immigrant transport market because he knew the English language and the American scene at first hand, having been born of Dutch parents at Savannah, Georgia, in l806. He returned to the Netherlands by the time of his marriage at Rotterdam in l833, and spent the next fifty years in the shipping business. Wambersie's partner in the l840s was a fellow Rotterdammer, Hendrikus W. C. Crooswijk, but by the mid-fifties, Wambersie's son August replaced Crooswijk as the junior partner. In l847 the Rotterdam firm offered to bring emigrants to New York "as

cheaply as possible--in fact, for 30 guilders each."

The Seceder emigrant groups of l846 and l847 especially used the services of Wambersie and Crooswijk. Hendrik P. Scholte's Amsterdam emigrants signed with them and Albertus C. van Raalte's associate, the Reverend Cornelius van der Meulen, wrote from Michigan: "I recommend the office of Wambersie and Crooswijk in Rotterdam." Another Seceder clerical leader, the Reverend Gerrit Baay of Appeldoorn, also commended the Wambersie firm for its service to his group of Wisconsin colonists. But the Rotterdam firm of Hudig & Blokhuizen were brokers for Van Raalte's group who sailed on the Southerner in September of l846. Wambersie also did extensive business in the northern province of Groningen; he had an agent at Uithuizen in the center of the main emigration region.

Wambersie faced stiff competition in the north from the firm of Prins & Zwanenburg, "expediteurs van landverhuizers" based in the city of Groningen, who in April 1867 opened a shipping office for emigrants and freight cargo to North America. Anne Zwanenburg staffed the headquarters office in the Frisian port of Harlingen, and senior partner Arend Martens Prins became resident agent in the head office at Groningen city. Prins and another partner, S. M. Kimm, had previously been major emigrant recruiters in the province of Groningen. The new firm also had agents throughout the province, particularly at Veendam. They also drew German emigrants away from Bremerhaven. In March l872, according to a report in The Nieuwe Groninger Courant, Prins & Zwanenburg ticketed a group of l60 emigrants to North America from the Middelstum area. Prins & Zwanenburg also operated in Noord-Holland Province, where they were served by their resident agent, Koppe & Van den Ende. The firm dealt with the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomvaart Maatschappij (Royal Dutch Steamship Company)(Figure 4.1).

In addition to its network of ticketing agents throughout the Netherlands and northern Europe, Prins & Zwanenburg placed partners and representatives among the Dutch settlements in the United States to sell prepaid tickets and to serve as immigration agents for American railroad companies such as the Erie, Nickel Plate, and Milwaukee Road. Martin W. Prins, Jr., son of the senior partner, migrated to Chicago, and his partner Theodore F. Koch settled in St. Paul. The American associates borrowed capital from Prins & Zwanenburg and Dutch banking houses to export Frisian-Holstein cattle to the United States and to invest in frontier lands in Minnesota, Texas, and elsewhere. The firm printed glossy brochures and advertised their services and lands regularly in local newspapers such as Het Weekblad voor het Kanton Bergum. A broadside by Mr. J Wijkstra, their agent in the Frisian village of Ee, for example, touted in glowing terms the lands of the Northern Pacific Railway, complete with a huge map detailing the cities and villages. The extensive activities of Prins & Zwanenburg in the Netherlands and on the American frontier are only dimly perceived and merit a detailed investigation.

Other Dutch immigration firms were Van Dam & Sweer, Cornelius Balquere & Son, and DeKuipers, all of Rotterdam; and at Amsterdam Wehlburg & Breuker and Ponselet & Zonen. Ponselet served as agent for the Reverend Pieter Zonne's Seceder group from Overijsel in May of l847, who were booked on the Amsterdam bark, Snelheid. Amsterdam ticket prices were considerably cheaper than those from Rotterdam but sailings were less regular.

The emigration companies in the port cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and even Harlingen, not only stationed agents in interior cities but advertised widely in newspapers throughout the Netherlands. They had to work hard to compete for the lucrative trade with foreign agencies from Antwerp and elsewhere who operated alongside the Dutch houses. The house of Oolgaardt and Bruinier, which represented two Liverpool steamship companies, operated in the province of Noord-Holland. In the province of Limburg, the Antwerp expediter and ship broker, Adolph Strauss and his son Henri, were very active, placing resident agents at Sittard, Nieuwstadt, and three other cities. Steinman & Company, also of Antwerp, likewise had an agent at Sittard. P. A. Van Es & Company of Rotterdam stationed a representative at Nieuwstadt, and Wambersie and Son of Rotterdam located their man in Limbricht.

Strauss and Steinman advertised weekly in the regional Limburg newspaper, Mercurius. Strauss's ads in l862 and l863 cleverly included the text of the new American Homestead Law which appealed to small Limburg farmers. The ads also stressed that there were regular sailings each Saturday by steamboat directly from Antwerp to New York, as well as twice a month sailings on a large and speedy three-mast schooner with clean, first class accommodations. Not only was the trip shorter than going over England, but the fares on the schooner were 20-25 francs per person cheaper than other shipping companies that went over English ports.

Most middle Limburgers who emigrated to Minnesota in the years l860 to l866 found Strauss's services irresistible. For poorer emigrants the discount was significant because transatlantic tickets cost from one to three times the average monthly wage of a laborer or craftsman. Although the advertisements designated New York as the port of arrival, several "America letters" from middle Limburgers in Minnesota state that sometimes Strauss's ships landed at Quebec instead of New York, and then the Limburg immigrants went inland via Montreal and the Great Lakes to St. Paul, Minnesota.

The preferred port of arrival in North America for the Dutch immigrants was always New York City, but it did not really dominate the traffic until the opening in 1855 of the Castle Garden reception center on the tip of Manhattan Island. In the previous decades Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and even Boston, together managed to lure a third of the Dutch emigrants (Table 4.5). In the l820s, Philadelphia welcomed one-fifth of the Dutch but in the l830s and l840s New Orleans and Baltimore cut into Philadelphia's share, and New York upped its share from two-thirds to nearly four-fifths. Boston hosted only 5 percent of the Dutch in the l840s.

Several thousand Dutch immigrants landed at Quebec and then went inland via the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes system. After l860 most took the train through Montreal over Windsor to Detroit. Many went on to Grand Rapids, but those heading further west boarded a steamer bound for Chicago, Sheboygan, Green Bay, St. Paul, or some other port on Lake Michigan or Lake Superior. The Netherlands emigration lists occasionally refer in the "Remarks" column to persons who landed at Quebec and then entered the United States at one of the Great Lakes ports. In l848, a "Mr. Bosdyke," a gentleman of rank, came from Amsterdam by way of Canada. Other emigrants from the German border district of Graafschap-Bentheim, who often accompanied Dutch emigrants, left from Bremerhaven in l848 by sailboat on a voyage to Quebec and from there they went by steamboat to Buffalo. In l886 18 Amsterdam families, comprising 48 persons, departed for Holland, Michigan "via Quebec."

Between l855 and 1880, almost 95 percent of the registered Dutch immigrants arrived at New York. This compares to 66 percent for all immigrants at mid-century. No other port could rival its reception facilities. Castle Garden was so commodious, well-run, and protective of the new arrivals that its fame spread throughout Europe. The New York Times in l874 asserted somewhat boastfully that "Castle Garden is now so well known in Europe that few emigrants can be induced to sail for any other destination. Their friends in this country write to those who are intending to emigrate to come to Castle Garden where they will be safe, and if out of money, they can remain until it is sent to them." By l888, 76 percent of the total immigration to the United States came via Castle Garden, and after Ellis Island opened in l892, New York's share surpassed 95 percent.

The Empire City was less "foreign" to the Dutch than other ports because of its Netherlandic origins and culture. Dutch immigrant aid societies welcomed the newcomers. In early 1847, leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church of America (RCA), particularly the Reverend Thomas De Witt of New York City, formed the "Netherlands Society for the Protection of the Emigrants from Holland." Pieter I. G. Hodenpijl, himself an immigrant in 1840 and professor of modern languages at the RCA college of Rutgers in New Brunswick, NJ from 1843 to 1846, served as the "general agent" of the "True Netherlands Society" (as it was popularly known) until 1854. Hodenpijl met all Dutch immigrants at the docks and directed them to several rooming houses near the harbor run by Dutch proprietors, notably Albert's Hollandsche Logement at No. 26 West Street on the North River and the Company for Dutch Emigrants at 157 Cedar Street. Unfortunately, Hodenpijl incurred the mistrust of the immigrants when he became involved as agent for Dutch-American land speculators in western Michigan.

In the years 1870-1884 the Reverend A. H. Bechthold, pastor of the Holland Reformed Church of New York, and his son met each Dutch immigrant ship and helped their compatriots during their stay in the city. Until 1881, the usual Dutch stopping place was the Holland Hotel at 3 Battery Place near Castle Garden, kept by a Mr. Rolffs. When it closed in 1881, the Dutch immigrants were directed to the German Immigration House sponsored by the Lutheran Mission Society. The cost was $l per day per person.

The city itself was also ideally situated geographically and had adequate inland transport to enable the Dutch to reach their ultimate destinations in the Great Lakes region. Most Dutch viewed the city not as the final destination but merely the port of entry. The census of 1850 registered fewer than 600 Dutch-born in New York and Brooklyn, the 1860 census numbered 1,400, and in 1870 the count of Dutch-born was up modestly to 1,700. As many as a third of these were Dutch Jews, primarily from Amsterdam.

There are several reasons why so few Dutch remained in New York City (or any eastern port city). Most importantly, the rural Dutch found the bustling city a threatening and strange environment, teaming with "sharks" and "runners," some of whom were even Dutch-speaking "friends" who tried to swindle the new arrivals. As Dominie Baay, one of the l847 Seceder leaders, warned in a letter to the homeland: "trust no one," including countryman who speak Dutch, and get out of the city as soon as possible. Since the Hudson River steamship leaves for Albany daily at 6 P.M., Baay recommended transferring baggage from the ocean vessel to the steamship on the day of arrival and proceeding directly to Albany, where there were helpful and trusted Dutch-speaking clerics, notably Isaac N. Wyckhoff. Similarly, Baay warned about stopping in Buffalo and urged his followers to board the lake steamer for Milwaukee without delay. Another Seceder, J. Berkhout, reported in a letter to the Netherlands in 1848: "New York is in many places a danger for pedestrians because of the masses of carts and wagons and the din of the people going back and forth. I said big, busy, dangerous, also dirty, but gracefully-built New York."

There was also the danger of spiritual pollution. As the Reverend Baay explained: "The religious condition of those living in the [eastern seaboard] cities leaves much to be desired--a reason why, in general, people wish to be where the Dutch are congregated more together," i.e., in the Midwest. One family who stayed in the city temporarily expressed this sentiment clearly in a letter to the Netherlands: "We are located here as a lonely sparrow on the roof (italics mine) destitute of public worship and of His people. The way for me is narrow and fearful. . . . There are Reformed Churches here but they are all English (speaking)."

Since nine out of ten of all Dutch immigrants entered the United States via New York City, the statistics for this port provide the norm and any differences with other places of entry are minor and not statistically significant. Only ships from Germany deviated from the norm. Of the Dutch from German ports, 65.5 percent arrived at New York; Baltimore attracted 22.9 percent and New Orleans 11.5 percent (Table 4.6). Ships from French ports with Dutch aboard also showed a tendency to use New Orleans (10.2 percent) as the alternative to New York.

People from the individual Dutch provinces also varied in the proportion to which they arrived at New York harbor. This was a result of their differing ultimate destinations and their imperfect knowledge of the American internal transportation system. In the pioneering phase of the 1840s and 1850s, the proportion of immigrants using New York ranged from 100 percent by settlers from Groningen and Limburg, to a low of 54 percent by settlers from Utrecht province (Table 4.7). These Utrechters were mainly the followers of the Reverend Hendrik Scholte who were bound for eastcentral Iowa via the Ohio and Mississippi river systems. Thirty-seven percent of Scholte's followers from Utrecht landed at Baltimore and another 8 percent entered via New Orleans. Seceders from other provinces--Friesland, Drente, Gelderland, Overijsel, and Zuid Holland--also used Baltimore and New Orleans to some extent (12-16 percent). But after 1860, New York City had a virtual monopoly, except among Gelderlanders, of whom 7 percent used Halifax, 5 percent Baltimore, and 2 percent Boston. Even Utrecht immigrants switched to New York after 1860, with 96 percent disembarking there, compared to only 54 percent before the Civil War. The railroad link from New York to Chicago and West was now complete and clearly provided the cheapest and easiest access into the midwest region where the Dutch settlements were concentrated.

Transatlantic fares were relatively cheap at the time of the Great Migration and they became even cheaper after the Civil War. Fares varied, of course, with demand, season of the year, and destination (New York was cheapest and New Orleans most expensive because the trip there was ten to twenty days longer). In the 1840s, Rotterdam to New York fares averaged $14 (35 guilders) for a third class ticket in steerage, the infamous "between decks" ("tussendeks"). Fares were comparable at other continental ports, although Liverpool was the lowest at $12. But the fare from Rotterdam to Liverpool was $4 and the trip by ship and rail took ten more days. In addition, emigrants had to provide their own food during the long voyage (about $8 per person), plus the transport and lodging costs to reach their European departure port, where occasional delays in sailings might add to the expense. It took three to four days, for example, to reach Rotterdam from Groningen and the fare was $1.25. Once in Rotterdam, shipping companies allowed ticketed passengers to live free on the ship until sailing.

Upon arrival in New York or another east coast port the newcomers faced the inland trip to the upper Midwest that took up to three months before the completion of the rail line to Chicago in 1852 and westward across the Mississippi River in 1856. Thereafter the emigrant train from New York to Chicago covered the thousand miles in five days for a 3rd class fare of $5 ($16 1st class and $9.50 2nd class). Before 1852 the Dutch immigrants took the Hudson River steamer to Albany for a fare of only 25 cents, and then the Erie Canal to Buffalo for a fare of $7-8. At Buffalo they boarded a Lake Erie steamer to Detroit for $4 and then took another steamer for an additional $5-6 to traverse Lakes Huron and Michigan via the Mackinaw Straits to Chicago, Milwaukee, or Sheboygan. By the early 1850s the hassles of all these ship transfers ended with the completion of the rail link to Chicago. Thus, by the mid-1850s the total cost of emigrating from the Netherlands to Chicago was about $20 per person plus food costs of another $10. This was within the means of all but the poor, who were often assisted by relatives, wealthy patrons, and fellow church members.

Crossing the Atlantic Ocean made an indelible impression on every emigrant and all had a ready story to tell to any and all who would listen. Most were landlubbers who had never been at sea and were haunted by its mysterious powers and changing moods. Apart from the extreme grief of leave-taking at the departure docks, however, the voyage was a pleasant holiday for most travelers who enjoyed calm seas, favorable winds, and a clean, well-run ship with adequate food. Meals improved greatly after new regulations in the 1850s made ship owners responsible for providing food supplies and preparing meals. Sunday worship services were observed whenever possible. But stormy seas, accidents, and in the early years a frequent lack of wholesome food, coupled with shipboard epidemics, caused exceeding pain and loss for others. Then seasickness, groans and cries of fright in storms, and burials at sea became all to commonplace. Since the difficult crossing were more vivid and memorable than the uneventful passages, immigrant letters, dairies, and memoirs often stressed the unpleasant experiences. But for most, the voyage was merely eventful, or at worst a boring routine, sandwiched between the melodramatic departure and exciting first glimpse of America. The fear of the unknown future in the United States weighed more heavily than the crossing itself.

Chroniclers and popular historians have made much of the fatalities at sea due to epidemics and accidents. Especially in the earlier days of sailing vessels and longer voyages, and during periods of famine as in the mid-1810s and the mid-1840s, the death rate occasionally soared. From the American revolution until the close of the Napoleonic wars, immigration was minimal, perhaps only 3,000-4,000 per year, and travel conditions, while spartan, were not overcrowded. But after peace came to Europe in 1815 and a great famine struck in the next year, emigration gained momentum. In 1817 over 22,000 European immigrants reached American ports. To take advantage of the new business, avaricious ship owners began overcrowding their cargo hold and steerage decks with human cargo. Improper food and poor hygiene resulted in thousands of deaths from typhus or "ship-fever," cholera, and small pox. Mortality rates on passage averaged 9 percent and on some ships soared as high as 30 percent. Of 1,000 immigrants on the ship April from Amsterdam to Philadelphia in 1817, 470 died of sickness. The United States Congress moved quickly in 1819 to rectify these horrendous facts by enacting the first of many regulatory acts to improve shipboard conditions. Although health problems were not wholly ameliorated until the advent of steamers that were built especially for passengers in the 1850s and 1860s, the death rate at sea dropped sharply.

There are unfortunately few systematic estimates of immigrant mortality on the Atlantic in the nineteenth century, although the ship passenger manifests always recorded deaths at sea. Beginning in 1853, the U.S. Congressional reports occasionally included such statistics. These document a steady decline in deaths at sea: 8.0 per thousand in 1853, 6.3 in 1854, 2.1 in 1855, 2.1 in 1856, 1.6 in 1857, 1.3 in 1859, and only .5 in 1893. The only systematic study of the passenger lists, a 9.3 percent random sample (276,000 passengers) for the years 1836-1853, showed a loss rate of 13.2 per thousand, which is considerably higher than death rates on land in these years. The years from 1846 through 1849 were the worst, coinciding with the famine migration. Ships from Rotterdam (for unknown reasons) had losses in these years about 1 percent higher than the average for all ships from Europe.

Sailing vessels, whose average length of voyages was six weeks in the 1860s and 1870s, had mortality rates over ten times greater than steamships, which crossed the Atlantic in two weeks. In 1867 steamship crossings averaged 1.0 death per thousand passengers, compared to 11.7 per thousand for sailing vessels. In 1872 the numbers under steam and sail were .3 and 5.4 per thousand, respectively. Ships leaving from the same port but owned by different companies also had differing mortality rates. This was even true among steamship companies. In 1870 official returns on emigrants from the United Kingdom landing at New York revealed that the Inman and Cunard steamship lines had the lowest mortality rates (.5 and .4 per thousand, respectively), and the National and Anchor lines had the highest death rates (1.0 and .7 per thousand, respectively). Thus, the Inman and Cunard lines had only half the death rate as the National and Anchor ships. The number of Dutch who died at sea was lower than the average for all groups. In the years 1820-1880, of the nearly 55,000 persons crossing, mostly in steerage, only 507 died, for a rate of 9.2 per thousand (Table 4.8). The rates were slightly higher in the 1840s (11 per thousand), 1850s (14 per thousand),

and 1860s (10 per thousand), but they were much lower in the 1870s (3 per thousand) when mortality at sea dropped to one- fourth of its previous levels. Two-thirds of the deaths were children, usually infants under one year. On the other hand, 19 infants were reported born on board ship and survived the voyage. Many other births doubtless went unrecorded in the ship manifests. One-quarter of the deaths en route were husbands or wives, which was a far more serious blow to the family than the loss of an infant or child. The low death rate was a result of the relatively good health of the Dutch emigrants and their proverbial cleanliness. Few Dutch immigrants were in dire poverty or in various advanced stages of starvation, as were German emigrants in the 1810s-1830s--many of whom sailed from Rotterdam--or the "famine Irish" in the 1840s.

Emigrants also died en route after arriving in the United States, especially before rail travel became commonplace. Of 900 Dutch immigrants who accompanied Hendrik Scholte to the Pella colony on the Iowa frontier in 1847, 20 (half children) died at sea, and 4 succumbed during inland travel in America. But 126 died within the first six months after arrival, many in St. Louis, due to disease brought on by poor living conditions. Arriving in America in a weakened state, due to generally poor provisions and conditions aboard ship, immigrants also faced the notorious accommodations of Erie canalboats and the hazards of Great Lake steamers and Mississippi River paddleboats. One lake steamer, the ill-fated Phoenix, with about 150 Dutch immigrants aboard, caught fire and burned to the waterline one wintry night within sight of the Sheboygan, Wisconsin harbor, which was their final destination. Their relatives and friends on shore watched helplessly while about 125 of their compatriots were burned to death or perished in the icy waters. Most hailed from the Winterswijk area of Gelderland province. Despite this tragedy, the Hollanders always recalled the Lake steamboats from Buffalo with pleasure, in sharp contrast to the Erie canalboats. The Hudson River steamboats, such as the I. Newton, were also praised as splendid "floating palaces."

The reputation of the Erie canalboats could hardly have been worse. The "wretched" barges were unheated, overcrowded, and moved at a snail's pace. Worse yet, the crews were uncaring. The 346-mile trip from Albany to Buffalo took up to two weeks and "was an experience full of hardship," reported Sietze Bos who voiced the sentiments of many. One Dutch traveller experienced "much trouble and suffering" on the canal and another reported a "miserable trip." Albertus G. van Hees who traveled the canal in early November, 1847, wrote: "We suffered great hardships. It was quite cold and there was no heat on board the boat and it was impossible to get warm food or drink." Van Hees's mother suffered a heart attack on the boat but survived. Summer travel created the reverse problem of heat. When Rev. Cornelius van der Meulen and his group of Zeelanders traversed the canal in July 1847, he wrote: "On the barge it was stifling hot and one had no room to sit down, there were no cooked meals and very little or no hot drinks." Three of Van der Meulen's parishioners died on the boat and one more died shortly after reaching Buffalo. Roelof Brinks took sick en route and had to remain in Buffalo hospitalized for four months. J. D. Werkman reported being "packed like herring in a vat," an apt metaphor his Dutch readers could appreciate. Some escaped the crush of people on the boat by walking the canal path. As Hermannus Strabbing noted: "We scarcely had any room to sit. To lie down, rest, or sleep was out of the question. Our protests availed nothing. The crew acted as if it could not understand us, with which we had to be satisfied."

To lessen the hardships, the Dutch emigrants were careful to take ocean passage during the most healthful time of the year, in the late spring and early summer. Over the sixty-year period, almost one-half (47.1 percent) of all crossings occurred in April, May, and June, before the summer epidemics broke out but after the dangerous winter storms on the North Atlantic (see Table 4.9). The Dutch emigrants had not always planned so carefully. In the early decades they traveled in some of the worst months. In the 1820s, July, October, and November were the major months of arrival, which meant the newcomers bore the brunt of the summer heat or arrived too late in the year to establish themselves in jobs and homes before winter set in. In the 1830s the three most popular months were June, August, and December, which had similar disadvantages. Dominie Van Raalte and his group of 109 aboard the three-master, the Southerner, arrived in New York on November 7, 1846, and sailed immediately to Albany and then proceeded by train to Buffalo, where they caught the last steamer of the winter for Detroit. Hundreds of followers in later ships, who arrived in New York in late November and December, were not so fortunate. They had to winter in New York City, Albany, and Buffalo, where they endured considerable hardship from lack of money and jobs were difficult to find. A few of the hardier souls actually walked from Buffalo to Detroit in mid-February crossing the Detroit River over ice floes.

The problems encountered by the 1846 emigrants because of their winter passage prompted them to urge the Secessionist leaders in the Netherlands to send the next year's contingent of colonists much earlier in the year, preferably in the second quarter. They must not leave in the fall, an "unpropitious season," as did the first group, "at the season of the year when they must remain in the city at expense and thus expend the means to carry them into the interior." Mr. Mensink, one of the men in Van Raalte's first contingent, wrote in late December of 1846 from Albany, New York, to "fellow believers in the Netherlands": "It is winter now and then Americans do not want to work; they earn too much in the summer that it is not necessary. [We do not] advise anyone to come in the latter part of the year, not later than August." The "Knickberbocker Hollanders," New Yorkers of Dutch descent, likewise advised the immigrants to avoid winter arrivals. Those colonists who planned to reach the Upper Mississippi Valley via New Orleans, which was the cheapest way, were particularly advised to leave even earlier, in late February, so as not to arrive in the summer heat when epidemics and fevers raged. Coming from a moderate northern European climate, the Dutch could not tolerate the humid, summer heat of the American south.

The emigrants of 1847 and subsequent years generally followed this sound advice. Those who did not sometimes paid a high price. Andreas N. Wormser left the Netherlands in late July of 1848 and by the time the family traversed the United States from New York to Pella, Iowa, during October, two daughters contracted scarlet fever and died within three weeks of their arrival. In the decades of the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s, 40 percent or more of the Dutch immigrants to North America arrived in May and June. Only in the 1870s, when faster steamers had replaced sailing vessels, did the prime arrival time move ahead slightly, to April and May, rather than May and June.

In conclusion, most Dutch immigrants used the convenient Rotterdam-New York route, although poorer people had to endure the longer but cheaper passage through Liverpool. These unfortunates faced the language barrier with English crews, whereas those taking Dutch-manned vessels from Rotterdam found the strain eased of the long voyage across a fearful sea. Antwerp, and to a lesser extent Le Havre, attracted fellow Flemish immigrants from the southernzg Netherlands, especially in the middle decades.

As for the crossing itself, the danger of death was real but exaggerated in the case of the Dutch. Out of more than 55,000 immigrant crossings to North America, less than 1 in 100 died on the sea in the period 1820-1880, and two-thirds of those were children and infants. The Dutch immigrants were healthier, they took more concern for cleanliness, as did the Dutch shippers, and they were careful to depart in the healthiest time of the year, the spring. The Dutch, it is clear, planned their transoceanic journey as carefully as they made the decision to migrate in the first place and to choose their ultimate destinations.

Table 4.1: Port of Embarkation by Decade, Dutch Immigrants, 1820-1880

Port 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-80 1820-80 N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Netherlands

Amsterdam 179 42 328 33 1897 15 842 6 57 1 1 0 3304 6.1

Rotterdam 13 3 85 9 7964 62 7138 48 1585 19 8475 52 25260 46.7

Nieuwdeep 0 0 0 0 119 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 120 0.2

England

Liverpool 34 8 36 4 165 1 2200 15 2217 26 5380 33 10032 18.5 London 7 2 33 3 348 3 337 2 2038 24 244 2 300 75.6 Glasgow 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 539 6 457 3 999 1.9

Other Atlantic

Antwerp 39 9 21 2 951 7 2526 17 1286 15 1361 8 6184 11.4 Le Havre 94 22 286 29 872 7 1651 11 175 2 63 0 3141 5.8 Other 2 0 1 2 294 2 0 0 4 0 18 1 319 0.6

North Sea/Baltic

Bremen 1 0 130 13 286 2 211 2 484 6 163 1 275 2.4 Hamburg 5 1 9 1 4 0 51 0 90 1 47 0 206 0.4 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 14 0.0

Mediterranean 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.0

Latin America 40 9 47 5 23 0 47 0 37 0 46 0 240 0.4

E. Indies/Afr 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 11 0.0

United States 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.0

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880

Table 4.2: Regional Origin by Port of Embarkation, Dutch Emigrant Household Heads and Single Persons, 1820-1880

Ports of Western Northern Eastern Southern Row

Dutch 1,984 48.2 1,063 25.8 873 21.2 196 4.8 4,116

(66.3) (63.2) (67.5) (50.5) (64.8)

British 510 38.3 491 36.9 258 19.4 71 5.3 1,330

(71.1) (29.2) (19.9) (18.3) (20.9)

Belgian-French 476 60.4 60 7.6 137 17.4 115 14.6 788

(15.6) (3.6) (10.6) (29.6) (12.4)

German 21 17.2 69 56.6 26 21.3 6 4.9 122

(0.7) (4.1) (2.0) (1.5) (1.9)

Column tot 2,991 47.1 1,683 26.5 1,294 20.4 388 6.1 6,356

Western provinces: Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland

Northern provinces: Drenthe, Friesland, Groningen

Eastern provinces: Gelderland, Overijssel

Southern provinces: Noord-Brabant, Limburg

Source: Linked data files: Dutch Emigrants to the United States, 1835-1880, and Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880

Table 4.3: National Ports of Embarkation by Province of Origin, Pre- and

Post-1860 (in percent)

National Ports of Embarkation______________

Periods 35-60 61-80 35-60 61-80 35-60 61-80 35-60 61-80

Western

provinces:

Noord-Holland 84 51 9 44 7 1 0 4

Utrecht 89 61 2 26 10 9 0 4

Zuid-Holland 86 67 4 29 9 3 0 1

Northern

provinces:

Drenthe 94 56 0 41 4 0 2 3

Friesland 72 63 14 25 12 2 2 0

Groningen 87 48 9 44 4 1 1 8

Eastern

provinces:

Gelderland 84 32 3 52 13 12 0 5

Overijssel 80 52 12 44 6 2 4 2

Southern

provinces:

Limburg 24 32 0 22 76 45 0 1

Noord-Brabant 70 29 7 55 23 11 1 5

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880

Table 4.4: Occupation by Port of Embarkation, 1820-1880

Occupation Dutch English Belgian French German Other Total

White collar 934 41.9 706 31.7 159 7.1 110 4.9 146 6.6 173 7.8 2,228

(9.6) (10.7) (6.6) (8.7) (23.2) (57.8) (10.6)

Farming 4,625 57.7 1,108 13.8 1,101 13.7 930 11.6 234 2.9 14 0.2 8,012 (47.4) (16.7) (46.0) (72.9) (37.1) (4.7) (38.2)

Craftsmen 2,114 50.1 1,162 27.5 557 13.7 128 3.0 141 3.3 100 2.4 4,222

(21.7) (17.6) (24.1) (10.0) (22.4) (33.4) (20.1)

Unskilled 1,342 26.9 3,015 60.4 466 9.3 76 1.5 84 1.7 9 0.2 4,992 (13.7) (45.6) (19.5) (6.0) (13.3) (3.0) (23.8)

Adults not 746 49.2 621 40.9 91 6.0 31 2.0 25 1.6 3 0.2 1,517 employed (7.6) (9.4) (3.8) (2.4) (4.0) (0.1) (7.2)

Totals 9,761 46.5 6612 31.5 2394 11.4 1275 6.1 630 3.0 299 1.4 20,971

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880.

Table 4.5: Port of Arrival by Decade, Dutch Immigrants, 1820-1880

Port 1820-1829 1830-1839 1840-1849 1850-1859 1860-1869 1870-1880 1820-1880

New

York 273 65 618 63 10122 78 14042 93 8066 95 15237 94 48358 89

Balt-

imore 0 0 45 5 1538 12 226 2 173 2 301 2 2283 4 #9;

New

Orleans 29 7 94 10 879 7 574 4 36 0 55 0 1667 3

Boston 18 4 51 5 229 2 162 1 213 2 257 2 930 2

Phil 85 20 170 17 163 1 48 0 8 0 416 3 890 2

&#

Other 18 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 61 0

Atlantic and Gulf ports

_______________________________________________________________________________

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880

Table 4.6: Ports of Embarkation by Ports of Arrival, 1820-1880

Ports of Arrival _______________________________

Baltimore Boston____New Orleans New York __Philadelphia Totals

N % N % N % N % N % N

Dutch 1,674 5.8 392 1.4 744 2.6 25,621 89.1 319 1.1 28,750

(72.8) (42.4) (43.6) (52.6) (35.5) (52.7)

British 249 1.8 405 2.7 196 1.4 13,206 93.1 128 0.9 14,184 (10.8) (43.8) (11.5) (27.1) (14.2) (26.0)

Belgian 0 0.0 58 0.9 191 3.0 5,861 91.0 329 5.1 6,439

(0.0) (6.3) (11.2) (12.0) (36.6) (11.8)

French 2 0.1 0 0.0 327 10.2 2,795 86.8 95 3.0 3,219

(0.1) (0.0) (19.1) (5.7) (10.6) (5.9)

German 341 22.8 1 0.1 171 11.5 977 65.5 2 0.1 1,492

(14.8) (0.1) (10.0) (2.0) (0.2) (2.7)

Other 32 7.3 68 15.6 79 18.1 231 53.0 26 6.0 436

(1.4) (7.4) (4.6) (0.5) (2.9) (0.8)

Totals 2,298 4.2 924 1.7 1,708 3.1 48,691 89.3 899 1.7 54,520

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880.

Table 4.7: U.S. Ports of Arrival by Netherlands Province of Origin, Pre- and Post-1860 (in percent)

Periods 35-60 61-80 35-60 61-80 35-60 61-80 35-61 61-80 35-61 61-80 35-60 61-80

Western provinces:

NH 95 93 2 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 -- 3

UT 54 96 37 4 8 0 2 0 0 0 -- 0

ZH 90 99 4 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 -- 1

Northern provinces:

DR 86 94 12 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 -- 0

FR 82 98 4 0 12 0 0 1 1 0 -- 0

GR 100 98 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0

Eastern provinces:

GE 85 85 5 5 7 0 1 2 2 0 -- 7

OV 87 97 5 1 7 1 1 1 2 0 -- 0

Southern provinces:

LI 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0

NB 92 99 1 0 2 0 7 2 0 0 -- 0 ZE 99 95 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 -- 1

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880

Table 4.8: Deaths at Sea, by Family Status, Age, and Decade,

Dutch Immigrants, 1820-1880

Status and age group

Husband 76 15.0

Wife 47 9.3

Infants (below age 1) 91 17.9

Children (age 1-13) 251 49.5

Other adults (age 14+) 42 8.3

Total 507 100.0

Deaths by decade (deathrate 1.1 per 1,000)

1820-1829 0 0.0

1830-1839 1 0.2

1840-1849 147 29.0

1850-1859 206 40.6

1860-1869 103 20.3

1870-1880 50 9.9

All years 507 10.0

Source: Data file; Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests,

1820-1880

Table 4.9: Month of Arrival by Decade, Dutch Immigrants, 1820-1880

Month 1820-1829 1830-1839 1840-1849 1850-1859 1860-1869 1870-1879 1870-1880 N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Jan 17 4.0 41 4.2 583 4.5 456 3.0 343 4.0 281 1.7 1721 3.2

Feb 7 1.7 20 2.0 40 0.3 357 2.4 155 1.8 372 2.3 951 1.7

Mar 20 4.7 19 1.9 152 1.2 165 1.1 330 3.9 1643 10.1 23229 4.3 1st qt 44 10.4 80 8.1 775 6.0 978 6.5 828 9.7 2296 14.1 5001 9.2

Apr 33 7.8 15 1.5 842 6.5 952 6.3 693 8.1 3253 20.0 5788 10.7

May 26 6.2 63 6.4 2017 15.6 2864 19.0 1677 19.6 3377 20.8 10024 18.5

June 42 9.9 260 26.5 3135 24.2 2936 19.5 1908 22.4 1452 8.9 9733 18.0

2nd qt 101 23.9 338 34.4 5994 46.3 6752 44.8 4278 50.1 8082 49.7 25545 47.1

July 82 19.4 92 9.4 1884 14.6 1494 9.9 690 8.1 1117 6.9 5359 9.9

Aug 21 5.0 244 24.9 1085 8.4 1128 7.5 389 4.5 1229 7.6 4096 7.5

Sept 34 8.1 43 4.4 1063 8.2 1673 11.1 722 8.5 1231 7.6 4766 8.8

3rd qt 137 32.4 379 38.6 4032 31.2 4295 28.5 1801 21.1 3577 22.0 14221 26.2

Oct 74 17.5 35 3.6 871 6.7 1652 11.0 602 7.1 854 5.3 4088 7.5

Nov 43 10.2 48 4.9 595 4.6 740 4.9 690 8.1 887 5.4 3003 5.5

Dec 24 5.7 101 10.3 666 5.2 635 4.2 335 3.9 570 3.5 2331 4.3

4th qt 141 33.3 184 18.8 2132 16.5 3027 20.1 1627 19.1 2311 14.2 9422 17.4

Source: Data file: Dutch Immigrants in U.S. Ship Passenger Manifests, 1820-1880

Figure 4.1: Letterhead from Prins & Zwanenburg, Shipping Agents for the

Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij (Royal Dutch Steamship Company).