Johanna Carolina Hellsten, the Rest of the Story

If you've been reading the saga about Johanna Carolina Hellsten and Uno Kempff, you'll notice there are some time gaps that we do not know all the details. This post will fill in all of the details that we know about Johanna, after many posts on Uno Kempff and his shenanigans with the law.

What do we know about Johanna, the oldest daughter born to Carl (Kalle) Hellsten and Johanna Sparr on 25 February 1851 in Nikolai Parish, Örebro, Sweden?

What did she do with her life?

She was 16 when her family fell on hard times in Sweden.  She wrote to her uncle in America, describing her talent for handwork in her father's brewery and general store (which had gone bankrupt), appealing for funds to travel and help once she arrived.  Eric Adolf Helsten had immigrated to USA in 1845, his mother died in 1863. His brother Manne (Theodor Emanual) Hellsten had managed their mother's estate and there was a small amount of money due to Eric. Eric agreed to have his niece Johanna borrow those funds.  Eric knowing the "reduced circumstances" of his brother Carl's family, he has his brother Manne send the funds to their sister Lovis who lives nearby to Johanna's family and who will give the money to Johanna when she is ready to travel.


She was a young woman of 17 when she immigrated to Gaylordsville, Connecticut arriving in New York City on 22 April 1868.  Her uncle had alerted Castle Island of her upcoming arrival and they notifiied him of her arrival.  Eric finds a job for her working for the Bostwick family in Gaylordsville.  She agrees to a two year commitment to work as a domestic servant for them.

Bostwick family in 1870 US Census, New Milford (Gaylordsville),
Connecticut.  Johanna is listed as a domestic servant.

She was just 21 when she ran away from Gaylordsville to New York City  -- nary a goodbye or thank you to her helpful uncle.
The Bostwick family tells Eric how they liked her so much the first year, and Maria Bostwick's mother (probably the Eunice Sanford, age 71, above) liked  her so much that she gave her a tip at the end of her service in her final pay.

Her own family was very worried that Johanna connected with Uno Kempff, someone who was from the same town in Sweden, but who had a criminal past.  He had been writing her asking her to help him find work -- much to her family's dismay.
She ran off to New York City in 1871, and we have no record of her meeting up with Uno in 1871, but we have no proof that she didn't.  The next time we find Johanna is in 1874, coming back to NYC on a ship from Hull, England with Uno, pretending or actually being his wife.
Since Uno was married to another woman back in Sweden and living with yet another woman and possibly fathering that other woman's child, one wonders about the relationship between Uno and Johanna in 1874.  The family had heard a rumor in 1871, that Johanna had not only run off to NYC but had also married Uno.

I have not found Johanna Carolina Hellsten (Johanna, Hannah, Caroline, Carolina) in New York City in 1871, however, I did find her multiple times from 1875-1877 -- advertising her services as a dressmaker.
The first one was in the New York Herald on 31 August 1875:

In August 1875, she is a "Dressmaker" who can do all kinds of family sewing by the day at a reasonable price, in a couple of weeks (14 Sept.) she is a "Competent Dressmaker," who is available by the day or week at a moderate price, with references.  Sounds like she had some practice that first couple of weeks.  By 5 December, she is not only competent she can "make old dresses over equal to new."

By 24 September 1876, she is not only a competent had seamstress, she now advertises her ability to operated any machine.  She has also moved to 88 Clinton Street, from 27 Bond, of last year.

Then, the final listing I find for her as a dressmaker, is 24 April 1877, she is now at
111 WEST 11TH ST. -- FIRST-CLASS DRESSMAKER 
to go out by the day, or will take work home; best ref-
erence.                                                  Miss HELSTEN.


So, maybe she went home to Sweden after she ran away to New York City for some reason and was never mentioned in any of the many family letters to Eric Helsten (that I had translated and put in the book, A Ring and a Bundle of Letters), came back to New York with Uno Kempff, and then stayed and worked as a dressmaker.

In each of these ads, she is Miss J. C. Helsten, or Miss Helsten, not "Mrs. anyone."
Was traveling as Uno's wife, a convenience to get from Europe to New York and not appear to anyone as a single woman, or maybe not?
Who knows, I don't.

So, did Johanna stay in NYC and live happily ever after?
We have one final clue about Johanna ....
The 1910 Census for Brooklyn, New York, 60 Gates Avenue, in a three-family building, lives
Caroline J Hellsten,

She is now called Caroline J Hellsten, 58, single, never had any children.
Go to the next page of the census and you'll find she had Albert F Faberstedt, 45, also from Sweden living there as a boarder.  He is listed as married for 20 years, naturalized having came to the USA in 1887.   Albert is working as a painter.

She came in 1892, but is not naturalized.  She is working as a cook, was employed on
15 April 1910, but was out of work for 24 weeks in 1909.  She rents her home.

Notice, she is not naturalized.  No surprise.
From 1855 to 1922, a woman took the citizenship of her husband, so in order to become a US citizen, Johanna would have had to have married someone who was a citizen (birthright or naturalized).

[I wrote a blog post about how a woman could lose her US citizenship.  Marian L Smith’s wrote two fascinating articles tracing women’s naturalization from 1802 through 1940. These are in Prologue Magazine. Read the first and click through to the second one.]

Neither Malin Klangeryd nor I have found anything more about Johanna Carolina Hellsten. No marriages, no deaths. No other census listing, no passages to and from Europe (should be something if "came in 1892").

I'll write again, if we find anything.


©2015, Erica Dakin Voolich
The link to this post is http://genea-adventures.blogspot.com/2015/06/johanna-carolina-hellsten-rest-of-story.html

Fact Checking: Can a Woman Lose her US Citizenship by Marriage?

When searching for something else, a headline in a 1914 newspaper caught my eye:  “AMERICAN WOMEN DENATURALIZED BY MARRIAGE.”

  

The first two paragraphs:

     “Mrs Ernest Thompson Seton, vice 

president of the Connecticut Woman

Suffrage association, has just recently

returned from a short visit to Cuba.  

On her return to this country she 

had it forcibly and disagreeably

brought to her attention that the

United States penalizes women who 

commit the crime of marrying a for-

eigner by depriving them of their cit-

izenship.  Such women, although they

may be American born and of the

purest American ancestry, they are hence-

forth aliens, unless and until their

husbands consent to naturalize and

thus to carry their wives back to into

American citizenship.

     Ernest Thompson Seton, although

he has become so thoroughly identi-

fied with this country in the minds of

the readers of his delightful books, is 

an English subject.  He was born at

Shields, in the County of Durham, and

his first residence, when he crossed

the Atlantic was in Canada.  He and

Mrs. Seton were married in 1896 but

even after marrying an American wife

Mrs. Seton is powerless either to re-

tain or regain her status of American

citizen.  Hence when on the steamer

coming from Cuba she wished to land

at a port in Florida, she found that 

she was not allowed to do so.   She 

must proceed as an alien to a port 

designated for the entrance of immi-

grants and moreover she had to an-

swer the long list of questions which 

is put to the men and women who 

come to this country from Europe or 

Asia.  Had it been discovered that 

she was suffering from any contagious 

disease or had she been a poor wom-

an and therefore in danger of becom-

ing a public charge, she might have 

debarred from landing and de-

ported--not to her native country, for 

that is California--a state where wom-

en are really citizens and have the 

vote--but to the country of her hus-

band.”

Quick summary:  Mrs Seton, a resident of US, born in California visits Cuba probably on a vacation.  She discovers on her way home that she is no longer a US citizen because her husband is British.  She can’t debark at the port where she had expected to debark, instead she had to go to the port where aliens were processed.  There she was treated like an alien: lots of questions to answer, physical examination to determine if she had any contagious disease, and determination to see if she were poor and likely to become a burden upon society.  Such a surprise for what was probably a prominent woman who was married to a well-read author.  She had lost her citizenship by her marriage and the only way to get it back was to have her husband become naturalized!  She could have been deported “back” to not her country (USA), but to her husband’s country, whether or not she ever lived there!

[and yes I know California isn't a country, but they had given the women the right to vote before the 19th amendment was passed in 1920.]

When I read that story, I thought of my own great grandmother Martha Elnora Worthington.  She was born in Chicago in 1865; and in 1889, she married Harry Bogart Richardson who was born in Belleville, Ontario, Canada in 1863!  Did Elnora lose her citizenship?  Did Elnora ever leave the country after she was married?   Did Elnora have any difficulties?   

Time to Fact check the 1914 newspaper story, then answer the questions for Elnora.

Researching the accuracy of these claims, first brought me to Familysearch Wiki:

• "From 1855 to 1922 a woman took the citizenship of her husband. An alien woman who married a United States citizen became a United States citizen.
• From 1907 to 1922, a woman born in the United States who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship and became an alien. For more information, read Marion L. Smith's article, Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940."

Marian L Smith’s wrote two fascinating articles tracing women’s naturalization from 1802 through 1940.  These are in Prologue Magazine. Read the first and click through to the second one.  Relevant to our Mrs. Seton in the above article.

“After 1907, marriage determined a woman's nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized. However, those who married Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, or other men racially ineligible to naturalize forfeited their U.S. citizenship. Similarly, many former U.S. citizen women found themselves married to men who were ineligible to citizenship for some other reason or who simply refused to naturalize. Because the courts held that a husband's nationality would always determine that of the wife, a married woman could not legally file for naturalization.”

Clearly, in 1914, the immigration agents were correct to treat Mrs. Seaton as an alien, she HAD lost her citizenship because he husband had never naturalized.  But, the law eventually changed: 

“Happily, Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women's Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.  Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men. The only difference concerned those women whose husbands had already naturalized. If her husband was a citizen, the wife did not need to file a declaration of intention. She could initiate naturalization proceedings with a petition alone (one-paper naturalization). A woman whose husband remained an alien had to start at the beginning, with a declaration of intention. It is important to note that women who lost citizenship by marriage and regained it under Cable Act naturalization provisions could file in any naturalization court--regardless of her residence.”

All of the discussions in Marian L Smith’s two articles are quite interesting and worth reading.  She takes the process and fills in the details of the rest of the story and illustrates it for a variety of women examples.  Interestingly, the rest of the original article about Mrs Seton, discusses some other suffragettes who had this same problem and then talked about junior suffrage league meetings and organizing. 

It turned out that the issue of denaturalizing women was connected to the issue of women’s right to vote.

“The era when a woman's nationality was determined through that of her husband neared its end when this legal provision began to interfere with men's ability to naturalize. This unforeseen situation arose in and after 1918 when various states began approving an amendment to grant women suffrage (and which became the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920). Given that women who derived citizenship through a husband's naturalization would now be able to vote, some judges refused to naturalize men whose wives did not meet eligibility requirements, including the ability to speak English. The additional examination of each applicant's wife delayed already crowded court dockets, and some men who were denied citizenship began to complain that it was unfair to let their wives' nationality interfere with their own.”

Back to our Martha Elnora Worthington, born in USA, who married Harry Bogart Richardson, born in Canada.  Elnora was the daughter of a proud member of the Sons of the American Revolution.  Her husband was the grandson and great grandson of United Empire Loyalists.  Did she lose her citizenship by her marriage?  I know her son told stories of traveling to Ontario to visit relatives, so she did leave the country.

They were married in 1889, according to Familysearch Wiki quoted above:

• From 1855 to 1922 a woman took the citizenship of her husband. An alien woman who married a United States citizen became a United States citizen.

And Marian Smith says:

“Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women's citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.”

The key to her citizenship is whether her husband naturalized.  Harry Bogart Richardson came to the USA in 1871 as an eight-year old child.  In the 1910 US census he lists himself as naturalized.  He would have automatically become a citizen if his father naturalized while he was a child and most likely his name would not appear on any naturalization paper, just the father’s name.  

I have not successfully documented his  father’s naturalization.  When I contacted NARA, they sent me copies of a pile of cards, all men were named William Richardson and came from Canada in 1871 and lived in Chicago.  There was no way to distinguish which was OUR William Richardson.