3 ms·

I'm checking the main sublink under the link kindly submitted here, that is the link from the University of Richmond,[1] to see how well it displays under the d

I'm checking the main sublink under the link kindly submitted here, that is the link from the University of Richmond,[1] to see how well it displays under the demand of being visited by many Hacker News readers. An interesting fact about immigration to the United States is how much more some regions (broadly, the north after the Civil War) than other regions (broadly, the territory of the former Confederacy after the Civil War) were favored by immigrants during the peak period of United States immigration (the end of the 1800s). All of my ancestors arrived before peak immigration--in particular, all before the founding of the immigration station at Ellis Island in New York harbor--but immigrants throughout the post-Civil-War era strongly preferred settling anywhere but in the former Confederate states. [1] https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/foreignborn/#decade=1950&county=G2901130 https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/foreignborn/#decade=1950&c...

clarkm 11y ago
This is really evident when you look at the genetic data from places like Ancestry.com and 23andMe. The states with highest percentage British/Irish are all in the South: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714004765#fig3 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714... http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/04/04/a-genetic-census-of-america/ http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/04/04/a-genetic-cens... http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG2014_textboxes.pdf http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG...
refurb 11y ago
strongly preferred settling anywhere but in the former Confederate states Is that surprising? The Confederate economy was absolutely destroyed by the Civil War. From my understanding, there wasn't much work even for the Confederates let alone immigrants.
- tokenadult 11y ago
  Is that surprising? Yes, I found it surprising when I first learned the fact (in the 1970s), because immigrants were pouring into all other parts of the United States in large numbers at the time. That includes places that were wholly undeveloped wilderness and also places that were battlegrounds outside the borders of the Confederacy. It's even more surprising to me now, after years of reflection on my visits to Hong Kong in the 1980s, because the plain lesson of history is that welcoming immigrants is an excellent way to build up a destroyed economy and to provide more work both for the new arrivals and for the people who were already in the place that welcomes immigrants. There wasn't "work" (preexisting jobs) in the places where my ancestors or the majority of immigrants settled either, but there became work to do as the new settlers arrived.
  - refurb 11y ago
    I see your point. I don't know much about Reconstruction, but I assume that word got around fast that states like NY would provide a lot more opportunity than a place like GA. That said, I'm sure there were immigrants who went down there. From the little I know the Confederate States were smashed beyond recognition (not everywhere, but certainly the big cities).[1] Also consider that Northerners who went South were looked down upon by Southerners. I assume they didn't look at immigrants in a much better light.[2] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbaggers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbaggers

clarkm 11y ago

This is really evident when you look at the genetic data from places like Ancestry.com and 23andMe. The states with highest percentage British/Irish are all in the South: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714004765#fig3 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714... http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/04/04/a-genetic-census-of-america/ http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/04/04/a-genetic-cens... http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG2014_textboxes.pdf http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG...

refurb 11y ago

strongly preferred settling anywhere but in the former Confederate states Is that surprising? The Confederate economy was absolutely destroyed by the Civil War. From my understanding, there wasn't much work even for the Confederates let alone immigrants.

tokenadult 11y ago
Is that surprising? Yes, I found it surprising when I first learned the fact (in the 1970s), because immigrants were pouring into all other parts of the United States in large numbers at the time. That includes places that were wholly undeveloped wilderness and also places that were battlegrounds outside the borders of the Confederacy. It's even more surprising to me now, after years of reflection on my visits to Hong Kong in the 1980s, because the plain lesson of history is that welcoming immigrants is an excellent way to build up a destroyed economy and to provide more work both for the new arrivals and for the people who were already in the place that welcomes immigrants. There wasn't "work" (preexisting jobs) in the places where my ancestors or the majority of immigrants settled either, but there became work to do as the new settlers arrived.
- refurb 11y ago
  I see your point. I don't know much about Reconstruction, but I assume that word got around fast that states like NY would provide a lot more opportunity than a place like GA. That said, I'm sure there were immigrants who went down there. From the little I know the Confederate States were smashed beyond recognition (not everywhere, but certainly the big cities).[1] Also consider that Northerners who went South were looked down upon by Southerners. I assume they didn't look at immigrants in a much better light.[2] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbaggers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbaggers