The Unwanted. Social cleansing through forced emigration in the Kingdom of Hanover 1832–1866

The term “Übersiedelung” (“relocation”) was used by the officials of the Kingdom of Hanover to describe the practice, employed by the kingdom and other German states, of enforcing the emigration of their own subjects to the United States of America. Between 1832 and 1866, approximately 3.000 people were removed from Hanover in this manner by representatives of their own state. The forced emigration of these individuals—most of whom were impoverished and considered to be petty criminals—served as an alternative to imprisonment and was, therefore, even seen as a philanthropic and mutually beneficial solution at the time. Conversely, it could be said that the threat of imprisonment provided leverage for the government to ensure these people’s removal from the kingdom. Thus, while—according to the principle of “crimmigration”, as described by Christoph Rass—criminal law is often instrumentalized to prevent immigration, the Kingdom of Hanover and other German states used criminal law to enforce emigration. However, the fact that Hanoverian authorities used criminal law to enforce the emigration of its subjects should in no way lead to the conclusion that the “Übergesiedelten” were actually criminals and thus reinforce the persistent image of migrants as criminals. On the contrary, embedded in the theoretical framework of the migration regime, this paper argues that the criminalization of human behavior to enforce emigration is as much about shifting agency away from the (potential) migrants and towards the state as the criminalization of migration itself.

This essay will begin with a brief outline of sparse existing research and the historical sources available as well as the origins and patterns of the “Übersiedelungs” practice in the Kingdom of Hanover between 1832 and 1866. We will then focus on how those subjected to forced emigration were criminalized by the authorities to better understand the link between the production of social exclusion and forced relocation.

(Forced) emigration as a solution to social problems:

While “shoveling out the pauper”[1] in the context of the (forced) emigrations from Ireland, especially during the “Great Famine” of the 1840s, has not figured prominently in Irish and Anglo-American studies[2], it has still received considerably more attention from scholars than very similar practices in German states during the mid-19th century, which have been largely ignored. With respect to the Kingdom Hanover, the few studies that exist tell the history of the “Übersiedelungen” as a narrative of a local curiosity, exception, or idiosyncrasy of the German “mass emigration” to the United States in the 19th century.[3] Both the practice’s entanglement with transregional, transatlantic, and even global developments and the timeless character of the methods used to produce social exclusion have so far not been the subject of systematic study. Consequently, every approach to the subject is still heavily dependent on archival sources in the local archives on former Hanoverian territory, such as the Niedersächsisches Landesarchiv at Osnabrück (NLA).

Homeless people in a workhouse: Unemployment as a result of industrialization and rapid population growth ensured the impoverishment of broad sections of the population.
Original Source: “Obdachlose im Arbeitshause”, Die Gartenlaube 1857.

Based on preserved orders issued by the Hanoverian ministry of the interior, as well as authorities in the governmental district of Osnabrück to local offices and municipalities in rural areas surrounding the city of Osnabrück, the beginning of the “Übersiedelungen” can be dated back to the year 1832.[4] The population growth since the end of the 18th century paired with increasing unemployment in the wake of the disruptive early stages of the Industrial Revolution had led to the impoverishment of large groups of the population.[5] As a result of this phenomenon, also known as “pauperism”, which strained public and private budgets for poor relief, officials—especially in the Kingdom of Hanover—secretly began to select convicted petty criminals and paupers to force them into emigration to the USA.[6] Of course, US authorities and the public, as well as officials in the free city of Bremenwith Bremerhaven as the soon-to-be most important port of embarkation for emigrants—resented this practice. In the USA, a growing anti-immigration sentiment fuelled resistance against accepting convicts as immigrants.[7] Bremen and Bremerhaven, on the other hand, feared negative consequences for their emigration business, which was the foundation of the city’s profitable transatlantic trade.[8] But whatever countermeasures the senate in Bremen brought up, Hanover managed to circumvent them. Bremen introduced a system to record every emigrant who spent 24 hours or more in its territory in 1835[9] and forbade the admission of convicted criminals to lodgings in 1838.[10] Hanover, in return, sent the emigrants in question to the town of Lehe, a direct neighbor of Bremerhaven, to avoid their registration.[11] With Bremen authorities unable to differentiate between regular emigrants and former “criminals” forced into emigration[12] the Hanoverian strategy of secrecy and silent complicity with non-state actors such as emigration agents, ship captains, and merchants on Bremen’s side of the border proved to be successful: For almost two decades, Hanover was able to practice “Übersiedelungen” without having to fear any effective restraints. The system worked until 1850 when a man named Tönjes, whose emigration had been sponsored—or, rather, enforced—by the Hanoverian state, got arrested in New York and not only admitted to being a convicted criminal from Celle but also openly called out the officials in Lehe for their role as a local base for this kind of human trafficking.[13] A massive public outcry in the United States over this scandal led Bremen to announce a general ban on the transportation of convicted criminals to the “New World”. In doing so, Bremen forced Hanover to reinvent its system of forced emigration, and the officials at Lehe, now fearing consequences for its economic relations with Bremerhaven, abandoned their part in the forced emigration scheme entirely.[14] Hanoverian officials in and around Osnabrück then adapted their strategy and turned to private actors—in particular, emigration agents.[15]

By the same time, railroads and steam ships began to change the emigration business as a whole, and “Übersiedelungen” changed with it: the railway speeded up transportation of regular emigrants and former convicts to the coast,[16] and steamships accelerated crossings of the Atlantic Ocean.[17] Large steamship companies replaced traditional owner-managed merchant shipping companies.[18] This, in turn, made it increasingly difficult to negotiate “Übersiedelungen” via an agent with individual ship captains. Despite these new obstacles, Hanover continued to force its paupers to emigrate to the USA until the end of its independence in 1866 and beyond. As the Prussian civil administration took over Hanover, they continued the practice of forced emigration from the province of Hanover to the USA until 1868. Anne-Kathrin Henkel argues that even after Prussia officially abolished the “Übersiedelungs” practice in 1868, there were further cases of the forced emigration of unwanted subjects.[19]

At the core of the system of forced emigration ranged mechanisms of social exclusion and criminalization that allowed the state of Hanover to eventually remove its own subjects from its territory. The production of exclusion was not only key to the acceptance of the practice—and its costs—by both Hanoverian officials and society, but it also secured the cooperation of the victims themselves.[20] The production of exclusion can be reconstructed from case files preserved in the NLA. These archival, unprinted, and hand-transcribed documents contain correspondences between various branches of the administration and the ministry of the interior, the governorate, and local officials about the comparative costs of social care, incarceration, or removal by emigration as well as how these costs would be met, depending on the alternative chosen. Most importantly, the key actors discussed how to spot and select “suitable candidates” and put them in a position in which they would comply with their “Übersiedlung” to the USA.

Criminalized unemployment –
The case of Franz Heinrich Muthert 1845:

Regarding the social profile of the victims, their most striking characteristic was their belonging to the lowest social classes in 19th-century Hanoverian society: hirelings, journeymen, and servants were the social groups that were most affected by pauperism. Many of them either were unable to make a living from their trade due to low wages or lost their source of income entirely.

Excerpt from Franz Heinrich Muthert’s first workbook. The entry at the bottom left reads in translation: “The owner has worked here with good behavior since the last visa.” Only three out of 59 entries were certificates of employment.
Original source: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg. Nr. 4971.

Franz Heinrich Muthert—relocated to the USA in 1845—was born into a well-established family in 1796: His parents, Franz Muthert and Regina Maria Stapelberg, worked a mill in the town of Bramsche as tenants but lost their tenancy, most likely due to the closing down of small mills in favor of more effective machinery in larger facilities. They “died in poverty”.[21] Their son became a tanner and wandered between jobs for about 20 years until he got arrested for “vagabondage” and “begging” in Hameln, in September 1844, at age 48.[22] The officials confiscated two workbooks, one already used up and one currently in use. Workbooks in the mid 19th century served as collections of certificates of employment as well as a passport for mobile members of lower classes. Whenever they stayed in one place for longer than 24 hours, they had to register themselves with the local authorities and have an entry added to their itinerary. If they were able to find employment within the next day, their certificate of employment was entered into the document as soon as they left again; if they were unable to secure a job right away, then they had to leave after 24 hours.[23] Muthert’s first workbook reveals his struggle to find employment in his profession. Only three out of 59 entries in the workbook were certificates of employment, documenting a desperately unsuccessful quest for employment.[24] Muthert knew that, as he had only held three short-term jobs during an entire year, he was now considered unreliable and would never get another travel permit.[25] This would force him to stay in Dissen, where the chances of finding employment as a tanner were minimal. So, in growing desperation, he took the workbook of “a friend” who had settled and no longer need the travel papers.[26]

In growing desperation, Muthert used someone else’s workbook after he had used up his own. In Hameln (entry begins at the bottom right), however, it was noticed that the “owner, who had used up his last workbook in six months, i.e. had done little work, does not yet have a work certificate even in the current workbook and is apparently a burden on the foreign public by collecting travel gifts.” Stripped of all means of travel, he was sent to his home town of Dissen.
Original source: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg. Nr. 4971.

Still unable to provide for himself, Muthert was sent back to his birthplace, Dissen. There, his situation got worse when town officials discovered that his second workbook was not in his name and that several entries had been forged. This constituted passport fraud, which was no trivial offense. Back in Dissen, not being allowed to leave without travel papers, Muthert’s despair ignited a downward spiral. Unable to find employment in his profession, officials began to force him into lesser services, such as mending roads side by side with hirelings.[27] For a skilled craftsman, even an unemployed journeyman like Muthert, this meant a drastic social degradation.

In the face of this, it becomes understandable—from our perspective—that he revolted against these circumstances with all the resources available to him: He drank, he refused to work and, when a bailiff’s assistant called Brünjes threatened to lock him into a workhouse at Moringen (near Göttingen), Muthert filed a complaint against him.[28] Brünjes did not possess the authority to order this punishment, and Muthert knew this. Furthermore, Muthert frequently left Dissen without permission from local authorities or travel papers.[29] Although the accusations of theft against Muthert raised by the officials proved to be unjustified—they could even be interpreted as being fabricated—in consequence, he was finally taken to Moringen, where he was promptly considered as incorrigible and, therefore, classified as a suitable candidate for removal to the United States.[30] According to his case file, which contains no further signs of resistance against the authorities after the decision was made, Muthert accepted this fate, which—considering his past and his social context—must have felt like his only chance to improve his living conditions. He left Europe on December 4th, 1845.[31]

The Lot of Single Mothers
The case of Hermine Snöing 1859:

In contrast to Muthert’s decent starting conditions in life as an only child of mill tenants, Hermine Snöing from the town of Neuenhaus had to cope with rather difficult circumstances from a young age. By the year 1859, when she and her sister Fenna were “übergesiedelt”, the whole family had a reputation of being a “bunch of beggars” who were straining the public budget. Hermine Snöing was sentenced to detention for the first time at the age of 16 in 1844.[32] At roughly the same time, her father, Jan Hindrik Snöing, started to come into regular contact with the law,[33] which indicates that the family was struck hard by the radical structural changes of the industrial revolution and pauperism. The women of the family, however, had to face some gendered risks of further impoverishment. Despite her criminal record, Hermine Snöing must have found employment since, from 1846 on, there were no more entries into her file—that is, not until 1854.[34] But in 1852, giving birth to her daughter Johanna[35] not only challenged her with caring for a baby but also jeopardized her work as a maid. Moreover, as an unmarried mother, she was branded as being “wanton” by society and had, therefore, almost no chance of finding any employment. The mention of a procurer in a report by the office of Neuenhaus in 1854 provides strong suggestions of how Hermine Snöing tried to provide for herself and her daughter in the following years.[36] On July 18th, 1854, she applied for travel papers in order to search for employment in Bremen as she wasn’t able to find any work around Neuenhaus.[37] She was initially granted the privilege to move[38] but, only two weeks later, officials suspected that she had turned to prostitution again and summoned her for interrogation.[39] The accusations proved to be unjustified: Hermine Snöing had found employment as a maid with the merchant Carl von Rieden in Aschendorf.[40]

Hermine Snöing served thirteen prison sentences for begging, vagabondage, theft, and insulting the honor of an official between 1846 and 1859. They testify to a downward spiral that spun ever faster.
Original source: [33] Amtsvogt Rattweg zu Nordhorn: Bericht an das Amt Neuenhaus die Übersiedelung der verbliebenen Familie Snöing nach Nordamerika betreffend vom 21.04.1864, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

This employment, however, did not last long. Although exactly when and why it came to an end is not specified in her case file, her being punished for theft and trespassing in the very same year indicates another bad turn.[41] And the situation got worse: Having one child born out of wedlock had already made it difficult for Hermine Snöing to find employment, but it became impossible when her second child, a son, was born to the still-unmarried mother in 1856.[42] Until 1859, twelve prison terms for begging, vagabondage, theft, and insulting an official were recorded in her file,[43] representing a downward spiral that got faster by the day. Finally, officials suggested sending her and her younger sister Fenna to the United States. Both sisters agreed, even if that meant that Hermine must be separated from her children.

In the end, Hermine and Fenna Snöing had a bit of luck—at least in comparison to others who shared their fate. According to Anne-Kathrin Henkel, only a few among those who were removed via clandestine immigration by the authorities of Hanover actually managed to improve their lives after arriving in the USA. Yet, for the Snöing sisters, things did come around: In 1864, five years after their forced emigration, they were both married,[44] which would have been most unlikely back in the kingdom of Hanover, particularly for a woman like Hermine, with two children born out of wedlock and who was accused of being a prostitute.

Her new status even allowed her to request that her remaining family would be sent over in the same fashion that she was moved to America. Eventually, she would be reunited with her two children and, thus, gained back some of the agency that was stripped away from her when she was first criminalized and then removed from her home state.

“Cremigration” as a tool to punish unregulated and unwanted mobility:

Both Hermine Snöing and Franz Heinrich Muthert’s cases point out how people arrived at a point where they seemed to have no alternative but to accept their removal by the state. To arrive at this point, they endured cycles of dire poverty, criminalized begging, punishment, and social exclusion without any chance for betterment. The main reasons for this lack of options were the social circumstances the affected were born, or rather—as in Muthert’s case—forced into by external factors such as the social upheaval resulting from the industrial revolution, and this lack of options was both desired and brought about by the authorities while being simultaneously criminalized by the very same actors.

This leads back to the core characteristic of crimmigration as a tool for controlling or preventing migration or regulating mobility. The removal, by the authorities, of socially marginalized subjects from the kingdom of Hanover by forcing delinquents into emigration demonstrates that cremigration needs to be considered as a variant: Criminalization to deport one’s own subjects/citizens is the flipside of using criminal law in the regulation of immigration.

Poverty as a result of structural disadvantages throughout most of the 19th century, aggravated by fundamental disruptions of labor markets and societies during the industrial revolution, left many paupers with few alternatives but to become mobile. Yet, precisely this kind of unwanted mobility was criminalized by the authorities as “vagabondage” and punished accordingly. Thus, a social need was criminalized in the absence of social remedies or policies as a means to control the lowest social classes. The surge of transatlantic migration provided an opportunity for Hanover and other German states to conduct social cleansing by getting rid of unruly, unproductive, and unwanted subjects.

This mechanism—of criminalizing the behavior of the social groups that authorities want to get rid of—is not unique to the “Übersiedelungen” practiced by the kingdom of Hanover. Similar forms of social or political exclusion existed long before the era of “mass migration” to the United States and can also be noticed in more recent eras, for example, as practiced by the German Democratic Republic, recently researched by Anne Reuter (TU Dresden) for her doctoral thesis (article in German).


Sources:

*Beitragsbild: A woman begging with three children, one of them a naked infant, under the arch of a town-wall, CC-BY 4.0

[1] Moran, Gerard (2016): ‘Shovelling out the paupers’. The Irish Poor Law and assisted emigration during the Great Famine. In The Famine Irish. Emigration and the Great Hunger, edited by Ciaran Reilly, pp. 22-40. Dublin: The History Press Ireland.

[2] Moran (2016) and Hirota, Hidetaka (2021): Limits of intolerance. Nativism and immigration control in nineteenthcentury New York. In Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47 (16), pp. 3771-3787. Hirota, Hidetaka (2017): Expelling the Poor. Atlantic Seaboard States and the Nineteenth-Century Origins of American Immigration Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirota, Hidetaka (2014): “The Great Entrepot for Mendicants”. Foreign Poverty and Immigration Control in New York State to 1882. In Journal of American Ethnic History 33 (2), S. 5-32. Moran, Gerard (2004): Sending out Ireland’s Poor. Assisted Emigration to North America in the Nineteenth Century. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Duffy, Patrick J. (2004): To and From Ireland: Planned Migration Schemes c. 1600-2000. Dublin: Geography Publications. Murdoch, Alexander (2004): British Emigration 1603-1914. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Grigsby Franzen, Mary (1996): Free to Leave. Government Assisted Emigration Under the 1834 Poor Law. PhD diss., University of Virginia. Flaherty, Sandra and Lavelle, Catherine (1995): The State-Aided Emigration from the Crown Estates of Broughill and Irvilloughter, 1848-1849. In Galway Roots, Journal of the Galway Family History Society 3, pp. 77-86. Ellis, Eilish (1978): Emigrants from Ireland, 1847-1852. State-aided Emigration Schemes from Crown Estates in Ireland. Baltimore: Genealogical Publ. Co.. Klebaner, Benjamin J. (1961): The Myth of Foreign Pauper Dumping in the United States. In Social Service Review 35 (3), pp. 302-309. Haines, Robin (1997): ‘The idle and the drunken won’t do there’. Poverty, the new poor law and nineteenth-century government-assisted emigration to Australia from the United Kingdom. In Australian Historical Studies 27 (108), pp. 1-21.

[3] Plaß, Uwe (2016): Überseeische Massenmigration zwischen politischem Desinteresse und Staatsintervention. In Handbuch Staat und Migration in Deutschland seit dem 17. Jahrhundert, edited by Jochen Oltmer, pp. 291-315. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. Holtmann, Antonius (2008): Einiges Grundlegende und Verlässliche zur frühen Auswanderung aus der Landdrostei Osnabrück des Königreichs Hannover im 19. Jahrhundert. In Die Auswanderung von Norddeutschland nach Amerika im Spiegel der Literatur, edited by Bunners, Christian Brunners et al., pp. 11-24. Rostock: Hinstorff. Holtmann, Antonius (2001): “Den müssen wir nach Amerika schicken”. In Schöne Neue Welt. Rheinländer erobern Amerika – Aufsatzteil, edited by Kornelia Panek, pp. 185-189. Kommern: Galunder. Holtmann, Antonius (2001): Die Auswanderungs- und Übersiedelungspolitik im Königreich Hannover 1832-1866. In Schöne Neue Welt. Rheinländer erobern Amerika – Aufsatzteil, edited by Kornelia Panek, pp. 190-214. Kommern: Galunder. Rössler, Horst (2004): Bemerkungen zur deutschen überseeischen Massenauswanderung. In Über die trockene Grenze und über das offene Meer. Binneneuropäische und transatlantische Migrationen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Mathias Beer, pp. 345-361. Essen: Klartext. Rössler, Horst (2000): Hollandgänger, Sträflinge und Migranten. Bremen und Bremerhaven als Wanderungsraum. Bremen: Edition Temmen. Henkel, Anne-Katrin (1996): “Ein besseres Loos zu erringen, als das bisherige war”. Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgewirkungen der hannoverschen Auswanderungsbewegung im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Hameln: Niemeyer. Vollmer, Renate (1995): Auswanderungspolitik und soziale Frage im 19. Jahrhundert. Staatlich geförderte Auswanderung aus der Berghauptmannschaft Clausthal nach Südaustralien, Nord- und Südamerika 1848-1854. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. Klemke, Ulrich (1994): “Eine Anzahl überflüssiger Menschen”. Die Exilierung politischer Straftäter nach Übersee. Vormärz und Revolution 1848/1849. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. Moltmann, Günter (1978): Nordamerikanische “Frontier” und deutsche Auswanderung – soziale “Sicherheitsventile” im 19. Jahrhundert. In Industrielle Gesellschaft und politisches System. Beiträge zur politischen Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift für Fritz Fischer zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Dirk Stegmann et al., pp. 279-296. Bonn: Ver. Neue Ges.. Moltmann, Günter (1976): Die Transportationen von Sträflingen im Rahmen der deutschen Amerikaauswanderung des 19. Jahrhunderts. In Deutsche Amerikaauswanderung im 19. Jahrhundert. Sozialgeschichtliche Beiträge, edited by Günther Moltmann, pp. 147-196. Stuttgart: Metzler.

[4] Königlich Hannoversches Innenministerium: Kopie der an die Stockhaus-Direction zu Hameln gerichteten

Verfügung an die Zuchthaus-Inspection zu Osnabrück vom 28.12.1832, in: NLA OS Rep 947 Osn Nr. 11.

[5] Schäfer, Gerhard K. (2018): Geschichte der Armut im abendländischen Kulturkreis. In Handbuch Armut und soziale Ausgrenzung, edited by Ernst-Ulrich Huster, pp. 315-339. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 333-334.

[6] Rössler 2000, pp. 229, Plaß 2016, pp. 307. Similarly at: Pohlmann, Cornelia (2002): Die Auswanderung aus dem Herzogtum Braunschweig im Kräftespiel staatlicher Einflußnahme und öffentlicher Resonanz 1720-1897. Stuttgart: Steiner, pp. 81.

[7] Rössler 2000, pp. 203-204, pp. 208-209. Hirota 2017, pp. 101.

[8] Logge, Thorsten (2017): Migration als Geschäft. Auswanderung über Bremen und Bremerhaven im 19. Jahrhundert. In Die hanseatisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen seit 1790, edited by Rolf Hammel-Kiesow et al., pp. 285-307. Trier: Porta Alba, pp. 292.

[9] Rössler 2000, pp. 195-197.

[10] Rössler 2000, pp. 197-204.

[11] Rössler 2000, pp. 206-207. See also Henkel 1996, pp. 170.

[12] Rössler 2000, pp. 204.

[13] Rössler 2000, pp. 209-211.

[14] Königliche Landdrostei zu Osnabrück: Anweisung an die Direktion des Strafarbeitshauses zu Osnabrück die

vorläufige Einstellung von Übersiedelungen mithilfe des Amtes Lehe betreffend vom 23.08.1851, in: NLA OS Rep. 947 Osn. Nr. 11.

[15] Nolte-Schuster, Birgit (1999): Schiffe und Agenten. In Von Heuerleuten und Farmern. Die Auswanderung aus dem Osnabrücker Land nach Nordamerika im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Walter D. Kamphoefner et al., pp. 27-52. Bramsche: Rasch, pp. 35-39.

[16] Gabcke, Harry et al. (1989): Bremerhaven in zwei Jahrhunderten. Band 1 1827-1918. Bremerhaven: Nordwestdt. Verlagsges., pp. 87 and 93. Bickelmann, Hartmut (2010): “…den Vorzügen, welche Bremen als Verschiffungshafen darbietet, einen neuen hinzuzufügen”. Bremen und die deutsch-amerikanische Auswanderung. Verlauf – Strukturen – Hintergründe. In Bremen und Amerika. Die Verbindung der Hansestadt mit den Vereinigten Staaten, edited by Lars U. Scholl, pp. 116-137. Bremen: Wittheit zu Bremen, pp. 126. Fittkau, Tanja (2010): In die neue Welt – Von Bremerhaven nach Amerika. Atlantiküberquerung im 19. Jahrhundert und die Bedingungen an Bord der Schiffe. Stuttgart: Ibidem, pp. 59. Berking, Hartmut; Schwenk, Jochen (2011): Hafenstädte. Bremerhaven und Rostock im Wandel. Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 91.

[17] Logge 2017, pp. 303; Bickelman 2010, pp. 119; Fittkau 2010, pp. 44.

[18] Logge 2017, pp. 292 and pp. 303-304; Roder, Hartmut (2010): Bremens “schönere Sonne”. Zur Exklusivität der bremisch-nordamerikanischen Handelsbeziehungen. In Bremen und Amerika. Die Verbindung der Hansestadt mit den Vereinigten Staaten, edited by Lars U. Scholl, pp. 20-34. Bremen: Die Wittheit zu Bremen, pp. 26.

[19] Henkel 1996, pp. 176.

[20] Holtmann: Auwanderungs- und Übersiedelungspolitik, 2001, pp. 203

[21] Königliches Amt Iburg: Charakteristik Franz Heinrich Mutherts vom 11.06.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[22] Policeicommission zu Hameln: Bescheid an das Amt Vörden den in die Heimat gewiesenen Franz Heinrich Muthert betreffend vom 01.09.1844, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[23] Wanderbuch Franz Heinrich Mutherts, Laufzeit 17.11.1843 bis 06.07.1844, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[24] Wanderbuch Franz Heinrich Mutherts 1843-1844.

[25] Torpey, John (2000): The Invention of the Passport. Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76.

[26] Königliches Amt Vörden: Protokoll der Vernehmung Franz Heinrich Mutherts wegen Vagabondage und Passfälschung vom 16.09.1844, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[27] Vogtgehilfe Brünjes zu Hilter und Dissen: Bericht an das Amt Iburg die Unterbringung Franz Heinrich Mutherts im Werkhaus zu Moringen betreffend vom 14.12.1844 in NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[28] Vogtgehilfe Brünjes zu Hilter und Dissen: Bericht an den Amtsvogt die Unterbringung Franz Heinrich Mutherts betreffend vom 08.11.1844 in NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[29] Vogtsgehilfe Brünjes zu Dissen und Hilter: Protokoll der Vernehmung Franz Heinrich Mutherts wegen heimlichen Entfernens vom 19.01.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971. Königliches Amt Iburg: Protokoll der Vernehmung Franz Heinrich Mutherts wegen unerlaubten Entfernens vom 09.05.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971. Königliche Landgendarmerie zu Dissen: Anzeige Franz Heinrich Mutherts wegen Vagabondage und Diebstahls vom 04.06.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[30] Königliche Landdrostei zu Osnabrück: Schreiben an das Amt Iburg die Aufnahme des Franz Heinrich Muthert in das Werkhaus zu Moringen betreffend vom 17.06.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg. Nr. 4971.

      Charakteristik Franz Heinrich Mutherts 1845. Königliche Landdrostei zu Osnabrück: Schreiben an das Amt Iburg die Übernahme der Übersiedlungskosten für Franz Heinrich Muthert durch die Gemeinde Dissen betreffend vom 17.10.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971.

[31] Königliches Amt Iburg: Protokoll der Vernehmung Franz Heinrich Mutherts vom 11.06.1845, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971; Königliche Landdrostei Osnabrück: Schreiben an das Amt Iburg die Überweisung der Kosten für die Übersiedlung Franz Heinrich Mutherts an das Werkhaus zu Moringen betreffend vom 07.01.1846, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Ibg Nr. 4971; Plaß 2016, pp. 302; Henkel 1996, pp. 177-178.

[32] Amtsgehilfe Fiene zu Neuenhaus: Auflistung der Vergehen und Gefängnisstrafen der Schwestern Hermine und Fenna Snöing vom 11.05.1859, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[33] Amtsvogt Rattweg zu Nordhorn: Bericht an das Amt Neuenhaus die Übersiedelung der verbliebenen Familie Snöing nach Nordamerika betreffend vom 21.04.1864, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[34] Gefängnisstrafen Hermine und Fenna Snöings vom 11.05.1859.

[35] Amtsgehilfe Becker zu Neuenhaus: Schreiben an den Bürgermeister zu Neuenhaus die Übersiedelung der verbliebenen Familie Snöing nach Nordamerika betreffend vom 04.04.1864, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[36] Königliches Amt Neuenhaus: Schreiben an das Amt Lingen die mutmaßliche Vagabondage Hermine Snöings betreffend vom 01.08.1854, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[37] Königliches Amt Neuenhaus: Bericht die Ausgabe von Legitimationspapieren bis Bremen zwecks Arbeitssuche an Hermine Snöing vom 18.07.1854, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Königliches Amt Neuenhaus: Schreiben an das Amt Lingen die mutmaßliche Vagabondage Hermine Snöings betreffend vom 01.08.1854, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[40] Königliches Amt Neuenhaus: Protokoll der Vernehmung Hermine Snöings und Frau von Riedens vom 05.08.1854, in: NLA OS Rep 350 Neuhs Nr. 864.

[41] Gefängnisstrafen Hermine und Fenna Snöings vom 11.05.1859.

[42] Bericht des Amtsvogts Rattweg vom 21.04.1864.

[43] Gefängnisstrafen Hermine und Fenna Snöings vom 11.05.1859.

[44] Bericht des Amtsvogts Rattweg vom 21.04.1864.