4 ms·

It is interesting to see where immigrants settled in the 1800s. Primarily the North and West. Extremely few in the South. I assume this is related to slavery. T

It is interesting to see where immigrants settled in the 1800s. Primarily the North and West. Extremely few in the South. I assume this is related to slavery. These are also the most racist states. I’ve always assumed that was related to slavery, which it probably primarily is, but now I’m wondering if a bit of it can also be connected to the paucity of immigrants.

readthenotes1 5y ago
In summary: racism and slavery aren't the answers to all historical questions. Iirc, most of the immigrants of the 1800s came from northern Europe. Most will be happier with a similar climate. The growth of the South East didn't really take hold until air conditioning was popularized in the 1950s. Racism is endemic throughout North America (especially if you consider indigenous/native, or Irish a race). Slavery enabled larger farms in the inhospitable climate of the southeast and caribbean, but the existence of slavery there did not magically suppress immigration, the climate and subsequent economy did.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nwiswell 5y ago
  The reverse is probably true, however. If there had been more immigration to the South over these two centuries, bigoted attitudes would have likely been less tenacious.
  - t-3 5y ago
    Possibly, but a big factor in immigration is jobs. The north has been industrialized for a long time, so there was opportunity there for immigrants. The south, focused on agriculture, wouldn't be an attractive place to settle unless you were already wealthy enough to buy land (and slaves to work the land, in those days).
  - readthenotes1 5y ago
    Given the large protests against desegregation in schools in Boston Mass, the formation of ethnic gangs in NYC, etc. I'd say you are very wrong.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  >Racism is endemic throughout North America Where do you think racism isn't endemic?
  - readthenotes1 5y ago
    I would guess based on what little I know of human history that it's a human trait but the response bwas focused on immigration to the US
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
yuppie_scum 5y ago
It’s about distance. The northeast is closer to Europe.
- jameshart 5y ago
  Isn't that where the racism came from?
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Before 20th century, very few Europeans ever saw anyone of a different race.
    - jameshart 5y ago
      Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white. But even setting aside the massive European colonial machinery, the average stay-at-home 18th or 19th century European already had plenty of ideas about what people of non-European races were like, from the stories of colonial wars, tales of explorers' encounters with savagery, and general mythology and exoticism of what the rest of the world must be like. And those opinions were not, let's say, generally very enlightened. You can still be a racist even if you've never met someone of another race. If anything it's much easier that way.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        > Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white Yes, very small fraction of Europeans was involved in that. Overwhelming majority never left their country, and often their village.
- irrational 5y ago
  It’s not just the NE. It’s across the entire far north and the entirety of the west (from California to Colorado). I can understand the areas that border the Pacific Ocean, but what was up with the high immigration to desert states like Nevada, Arizona, Utah, etc.? Who would want to immigrate from (presumably) the green British Isles to the desert? Western Oregon and Washington would be more their climate.
analog31 5y ago
It almost looks to me like early immigration was driven by available land, and later immigration by available jobs. That would mirror migration trends within the country as well.
drak0n1c 5y ago
Racism was not the factor discouraging 1800s immigration (which largely was from Scots-Irish and other European backgrounds similar to the original settlers of the South) -- it was the climate, agricultural economy, and the fact that its elites preferred slaves over hired labor. The elite plantation owner class notoriously looked down on lower class whites, and the origins of anti-black American racism in part came from the animosity of workers who felt that they were forced to compete with slave labor. Not everyone hated though, some of the non-owner trades class at the time felt more kinship with the slaves than they did with the owners because that was who they were more commonly interacting with on a day-to-day basis when doing business and trading goods. The North arguably was more racist towards those Irish immigrants at the time, because the North was dominated by English Protestants (WASPs) while the South had roots in being from the poorer parts of the British Isles, which is the origin of the Southern accent.
jimbob45 5y ago
>These are also the most racist states. I have never found this to be true in my travels. Just because you see it on TV doesn’t mean that’s how it works in real life.
- loonster 5y ago
  I'm white. I have been subjected to racism from blacks in the south much more than from blacks up north. Its a different culture down there for everyone.
bushbaba 5y ago
California for example was just as racist as it’s south eastern peers.
marcusverus 5y ago
The main reasons were likely: 1) Ease of access. The North was geographically closer to Europe. In days when travel was slow, the difference was not trivial as it is now. 2) Climate. The median European latitude is roughly on par with Maine. The North would have felt more like home, while the South would have been very different (and not in a good way, in those days before AC!) 3) Northern Industrialization. The vast majority of the population (71%) and industry (~90%) was in the North. If you were looking for a job as an unskilled laborer, there was far more work up North. 4) Immigrant communities. In a sort of feedback loop, more immigrants in the North would naturally make it a more desirable destination for future immigrants. If you're a poor German immigrant who doesn't speak English, you'd feel more at home in a German neighborhood in New York City than in a Southern city which might not host a significant German community. 5) Slavery. Slavery undermined the market for free labor in numerous ways. First, most menial work was done by slaves. Second, slaveholders would 'lease' out their slaves to serve as laborers, with the pay going to the slaveholder. As a result, the going rate for labor was much lower in the South than in the North. Even if an immigrant aspired to farm their own land in the South, they would still be in competition with slave labor. In a sort of unvirtuous cycle, the existence of slavery meant that the only way to gain wealth in the South was to own slaves, which would have been cost-prohibitive for an immigrant.

readthenotes1 5y ago

In summary: racism and slavery aren't the answers to all historical questions. Iirc, most of the immigrants of the 1800s came from northern Europe. Most will be happier with a similar climate. The growth of the South East didn't really take hold until air conditioning was popularized in the 1950s. Racism is endemic throughout North America (especially if you consider indigenous/native, or Irish a race). Slavery enabled larger farms in the inhospitable climate of the southeast and caribbean, but the existence of slavery there did not magically suppress immigration, the climate and subsequent economy did.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nwiswell 5y ago
The reverse is probably true, however. If there had been more immigration to the South over these two centuries, bigoted attitudes would have likely been less tenacious.
- t-3 5y ago
  Possibly, but a big factor in immigration is jobs. The north has been industrialized for a long time, so there was opportunity there for immigrants. The south, focused on agriculture, wouldn't be an attractive place to settle unless you were already wealthy enough to buy land (and slaves to work the land, in those days).
- readthenotes1 5y ago
  Given the large protests against desegregation in schools in Boston Mass, the formation of ethnic gangs in NYC, etc. I'd say you are very wrong.
WillPostForFood 5y ago
>Racism is endemic throughout North America Where do you think racism isn't endemic?
- readthenotes1 5y ago
  I would guess based on what little I know of human history that it's a human trait but the response bwas focused on immigration to the US
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

yuppie_scum 5y ago

It’s about distance. The northeast is closer to Europe.

jameshart 5y ago
Isn't that where the racism came from?
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Before 20th century, very few Europeans ever saw anyone of a different race.
  - jameshart 5y ago
    Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white. But even setting aside the massive European colonial machinery, the average stay-at-home 18th or 19th century European already had plenty of ideas about what people of non-European races were like, from the stories of colonial wars, tales of explorers' encounters with savagery, and general mythology and exoticism of what the rest of the world must be like. And those opinions were not, let's say, generally very enlightened. You can still be a racist even if you've never met someone of another race. If anything it's much easier that way.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      > Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white Yes, very small fraction of Europeans was involved in that. Overwhelming majority never left their country, and often their village.
irrational 5y ago
It’s not just the NE. It’s across the entire far north and the entirety of the west (from California to Colorado). I can understand the areas that border the Pacific Ocean, but what was up with the high immigration to desert states like Nevada, Arizona, Utah, etc.? Who would want to immigrate from (presumably) the green British Isles to the desert? Western Oregon and Washington would be more their climate.

analog31 5y ago

It almost looks to me like early immigration was driven by available land, and later immigration by available jobs. That would mirror migration trends within the country as well.

drak0n1c 5y ago

Racism was not the factor discouraging 1800s immigration (which largely was from Scots-Irish and other European backgrounds similar to the original settlers of the South) -- it was the climate, agricultural economy, and the fact that its elites preferred slaves over hired labor. The elite plantation owner class notoriously looked down on lower class whites, and the origins of anti-black American racism in part came from the animosity of workers who felt that they were forced to compete with slave labor. Not everyone hated though, some of the non-owner trades class at the time felt more kinship with the slaves than they did with the owners because that was who they were more commonly interacting with on a day-to-day basis when doing business and trading goods. The North arguably was more racist towards those Irish immigrants at the time, because the North was dominated by English Protestants (WASPs) while the South had roots in being from the poorer parts of the British Isles, which is the origin of the Southern accent.

jimbob45 5y ago

>These are also the most racist states. I have never found this to be true in my travels. Just because you see it on TV doesn’t mean that’s how it works in real life.

loonster 5y ago
I'm white. I have been subjected to racism from blacks in the south much more than from blacks up north. Its a different culture down there for everyone.

bushbaba 5y ago

California for example was just as racist as it’s south eastern peers.

marcusverus 5y ago

The main reasons were likely: 1) Ease of access. The North was geographically closer to Europe. In days when travel was slow, the difference was not trivial as it is now. 2) Climate. The median European latitude is roughly on par with Maine. The North would have felt more like home, while the South would have been very different (and not in a good way, in those days before AC!) 3) Northern Industrialization. The vast majority of the population (71%) and industry (~90%) was in the North. If you were looking for a job as an unskilled laborer, there was far more work up North. 4) Immigrant communities. In a sort of feedback loop, more immigrants in the North would naturally make it a more desirable destination for future immigrants. If you're a poor German immigrant who doesn't speak English, you'd feel more at home in a German neighborhood in New York City than in a Southern city which might not host a significant German community. 5) Slavery. Slavery undermined the market for free labor in numerous ways. First, most menial work was done by slaves. Second, slaveholders would 'lease' out their slaves to serve as laborers, with the pay going to the slaveholder. As a result, the going rate for labor was much lower in the South than in the North. Even if an immigrant aspired to farm their own land in the South, they would still be in competition with slave labor. In a sort of unvirtuous cycle, the existence of slavery meant that the only way to gain wealth in the South was to own slaves, which would have been cost-prohibitive for an immigrant.