[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.S.records.Although the total number of such individuals can never be known withcomplete accuracy, a lower bound estimate exists.Marvin McInnis, inestimating immigration to Canada, subtracts out those individuals whoupon arrival said they were planning to travel directly on to the UnitedStates.22 A.C.Buchanan, the British agent at Quebec, developed thesefigures by questioning newcomers at arrival concerning their intentions.Although crude, Buchanan s reports provide a figure of about two hun-dred thousand individuals between 1830 and 1860.23The fifth known deficiency of the Passenger Lists concerns questionsof completeness.The major port of arrival for immigrants was New York20Hutchinson,  Notes, p.971.His sources for this estimate were U.S.Treasury, SpecialReport, Table 2, andthe 1891 version of U.S.Treasury, Arrivals.21Besides those landing at a U.S.coastal port on a ship from Canada, during some yearsarrivals from Canada at a few inland ports were also included in the totals.Otherindividuals entered the United States via land from Mexico, although less is knownconcerning this flow.22McInnis,  Population, pp.380 2.23McInnis,  Population, pp.380 2.The exact figure calculated from McInnis s Table 9.2is 200,409.This figure includes some number of individuals, fewer than nine thousand,who died from cholera in 1832 and 1834, although it does not include an estimatedsixteen thousand individuals who died on ship or after arrival during 1847.The totalalso does not include an uncertain number of individuals who arrived at the CanadianMaritime provinces and traveled on to the United States by land.22 Mass Migration Under SailCity, which accounted for almost three-quarters of total arrivals between1820 and 1860, although just more than 50 percent during the 1820s.24Although returns from New York were included in each year s total, itis not clear whether the port authorities collected lists from every ship,especially during the early years.One author, writing near the end ofthe antebellum period, suggested that thirty thousand individuals arrivedat New York alone in 1830, although that total may include U.S.cit-izens.25 Another aspect of the possible incompleteness of the Passen-ger Lists is that the totals for some years do not include returns fromevery port.In particular, the estimates for 1828 30 are based on sub-stantially fewer ports than the other years.This problem is minor forthe most part.For example, the 10 ports that provided returns in 1827but not in 1828 accounted for a total of 145 passengers in 1827, andmany of these passengers might not have been immigrants.In everyyear, returns are included from all of the major ports.The single periodwhere the lack of port data would be important is the last quarter of1832, which includes arrivals only at New York and Boston/Charlestown(Mass.).26Correcting for the first four known deficiencies would have no majoreffect on the trend in immigrant volume.In contrast, accounting for theissue of completeness might have a small effect, because this factor pointsto the estimates for the 1820s as being somewhat too small.In fact, analternative estimate for the 1820s that adjusts for immigration throughCanada and many of the other issues discussed finds a total of 205,000immigrants.27 Thus, the actual increase in immigrant volume may havebeen less sharp than is shown in Figure 2.1.Perhaps the most accurateconclusion is to say that, during the years from 1827 through 1832, theexisting pattern of fluctuations with a slight upward trend was broken.The increase during this period is clear in the data in Table 2.1.Overall,even if more complete returns for the 1820s existed, they would still showthat immigrant volume underwent a substantial increase during a fairly24Discussion of the changing arrival percentages at U.S.ports is provided in Chapter 7.25Tucker, Progress, as quoted in Hutchinson,  Notes, pp.977 8 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]